S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan: Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 9781463213374

Citation preview

S. EPHRAIM*S P R O S E R E F U T A T I O N S OF M A N I , M A R C I O N , A N D BARDAISAN

S. Ephraim*s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623

C.W. MITCHELL

Volume 2

GORGIAS PRESS

2008

978-l-59333-720-9First Gorgias Press Edition, 2008

The special contents of this edition are copyright © 2008 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey

This edition is a facsimile reprint of the original edition published by Williams and Norgate, Oxford, 1912

ISBN 978-1-59333-719-3 (Set) ISBN 978-1-59333-720-9 (Volume 1) ISBN 978-1-59333-721-6 (Volume 2)

& Ì G

GORGIAS PRESS 46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

T h e paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

THE REV. CHARLES WAND MITCHELL, M.A., C.F.

PREFACE. THE present Volume is the continuation and completion of that published in 1912 for the Text and Translation Society by the late C. W. Mitchell. After Mr. Mitchell's death at the Front (3rd May, 1917), the various papers and proof-sheets belonging to this work were placed in the hands of Prof. A. A. Bevan and of the present writer, then away in France. On a survey of the material it appeared that about half the Syriac text (pp. 1-128) had been passed for press and printed off; a good deal of the remainder was in type, but only partly corrected, and some was still only in MS. About half the translation was made, but still needing revision. Professor Bevan and I have therefore completed the text and the translation, and I have verified the Syriac, as far as my eyes would go, with the Palimpsest in the British Museum. We have further compiled a list of passages where corrections were necessary, both in the former Volume and in the earlier part of this. I should have wished that at least part of the Introductory Essay might have been Mr. Mitchell's work, but the only thing of the sort among his papers was a rough draft of an Introduction, written before Volume I. was published, when what he had deciphered from the Palimpsest was a mere collection of detached fragments, not a continuous text. This being the case, no other course was open to me but to write a wholly new chapter, explanatory of the documents here edited. C H A K L E S W A N D M I T C H E L L , son of Mr. Bobert Mitchell, Maple Braes, Lennoxville, Quebec, was born April 9, 1878. He was educated first at the little country school near his home, then at the Lennoxville Academy; he then had a distinguished career at Bishop's College University, Lennoxville, ending as a Lecturer in 1901. He came up to Cambridge in 1902 as an Advanced Student, passing the required standard in the Theological Tripos in 1903 and the Oriental Languages Tripos (Hebrew and Aramaic) in 1904. He must have worked hard and been well trained in iii

iv

PREFACE

Canada, for in 1903 his knowledge and power of expression was much above that of the average student, and it was no surprise to those who had seen his work to hear that he gained the Tyrwhitt University Scholarship (Hebrew) in 1903, and the Jeremie Prize (Sepfcuagint, etc.) in 1904.* In the following year (1905) Mitchell was appointed Hebrew Master at Merchant Taylors' School, London, a post which he held till he went out to the Front as a Chaplain. He was ordained in 1907, and took his M.A. in 1912. The very sympathetic notices that appeared in various papers and periodicals at the time of Mitchell's death speak of his varied interests in Merchant Taylors' School, in the parish work of S. Thomas, Telford Park, Streatham Hill, with which he was connected, and of his admirable devotion as an Army Chaplain in the most acute form of Active Service. It is right here, however, to give the chief place to his services to Oriental scholarship, by which indeed he will be permanently remembered. A full though characteristically modest account of his work of decipherment will be found in the Preface to Volume I. Mitchell had begun before he left Cambridge to work at the portion of S. Ephraim's Prose Eefutations, which had been published by Overbeck in 1865, but never translated into English; f his rew post at Merchant Taylors' School allowed him leisure ard also easy access to the British Museum, where the MS. of the Eefutations has its home. This MS., which in its original state must have been a very handsome book, now survives in two parts, very differently preserved. The first 19 leaves (i.e. two quires) are very much in their original condition; they are as legible to-day as when they were written some 1400 years ago, and any one who knows the Syriac alphabet and the ordinary rules of Syriac grammar can transcribe them. This is the portion published long ago by Overbeck (B.M. Add. 14574). The remaining 88 leaves {i.e. nine quires), or very nearly fivesixths of the whole, were turned into a Palimpsest in 823 A.D.; that is to say, the quires were unbound, the sheets of vellum washed, so that the writing was effaced, and then when covered with fresh writing the leaves were bound up into a new volume (B.M. Add. 14623), the new order of the leaves being of course * As an "Advanced S t u d e n t " under the then regulations Mitchell's name does not appear in the regular Class List, but merely as having attained the required standard. f A not very satisfactory German translation is given in K. Kessler's Mani (Berlin, 1889).

PREFACE

v

quite different from the old. These operations were very thoroughly carried out. I t is difficult entirely to eradicate older writing in this way, but the excellent facsimiles given in Vol. I . will shew the reader that the M S . has a most discouraging appearance to any one who sets out to read the older text. I myself had spent some time over it twenty years ago, and did not feel inclined to go on.* I t was Mitchell's great merit that he had the courage to go on. H e began to copy out what he found legible, and gradually the new fragments amounted to a considerable body of text, which he began to print. I n 1908 the work of printing was stopped by what he describes as ' a fortunate turn of events,' i.e. by the decision of Dr. B a r n e t t , keeper of Oriental manuscripts in the British Museum, to apply a reagent to the illegible portions of the palimpsest. T h e happy result is described in Mitchell's preface. W h a t however is not to be found there is a statement of the fact that it was Mitchell's patience and perseverance in transcribing so much of the faded writing that moved the authorities of the B r i t i s h Museum to relax their usual rules. I t is not to be supposed that even after the reagent has been applied it is an easy matter to make out the older writing of B . M . Add. 14623. I t is hard enough to verify what has been correctly deciphered, and doubly difficult to make out the text for the first time. To do it needs patience, determination, a good knowledge of Syriac idiom and of Ephraim's style, and specially good and trained eyesight. All these Mitchell had, with the result that he was able to transcribe whole columns of text that at first sight seem absolutely invisible. H e made mistakes now and then, of course, but the general correctness of his decipherments has been attested by the discovery in other M S S . of short extracts from the Refutations.! T h e text of these Eefutations, which shed such a flood of light upon religious and philosophical thought in the Euphrates Valley sixteen centuries ago, will always be connected with the name of 0 . W . Mitchell, but his interests and activities were in no way confined to the past. H e was a man of fine physique, and an enthusiastic teacher and leader of boys and young men. And he never forgot that he was a Canadian. W h e n the first Canadian contingent came over and landed at Plymouth he felt it impossible that they should be in the post of danger and he stay behind in England, and in 1 9 1 5 he became a Chaplain to the Forces, first * My results were published in S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel (Texts and Studies vii 2), Cambridge, 1901, pp. 73, 74. t See p. cxii.

vi

PREFACE

at Shorncliffe, then with Bishop Gwynne during the winter of 1915-16 at General Head Quarters, and finally, as he wished, he went to the Front as Chaplain to the 8th Battalion Bast Yorks. I have written at length about Mitchell's services to Oriental and Patristic literature, because this is the place to do so and because his permanent fame will be connected with that side of his activity. But I have no doubt, if testimony be worth anything in human affairs, that it was as a Padre in the very Front Line that he found the life that was most congenial to his whole being. " One sees here," he wrote to me from France (28 Feb., 1916), " another palimpsest: and ancient features in town and countryside are disappearing beyond all the subtleties of chemistry to restore." Yet he was still more concerned about his men. " He was always up near the men," wrote Col. de la Perelle, his Commanding Officer, himself a Canadian, " nothing on earth could keep him away; " and it was while he was helping the doctor to bandage the wounded near the firing line that he was fatally wounded near Monchy, on May 3, 1917. I t is impossible not to regret that one who had so many and such varied gifts of service and encouragement for his fellowcountrymen should have had his career cut short so early. But this at any rate may be said of C. W. Mitchell, that it was given to him to exhibit the example of a life of singular consistency, devoted to the highest ideals that he saw before him. His decipherment of S. Ephraim's Refutations is a permanent contribution to Syriac literature and to the understanding of ancient religious ideas, and when in the future scholars ask what manner of man it was that made this contribution to our knowledge of the distant Past, they will learn that it was one who felt he could not give real help and real encouragement to men in danger and discomfort without himself sharing in the danger and discomfort to which they were exposed, and who met an early death because he did share in the dangers of these others. He lies buried outside Arras, near the Amiens Gate. " A good life hath but few days : B u t a good name endureth for ever." * F. C. * Eoolus. xli 13.

BURKITT.

ST. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS VOLUME

II

CONTENTS TRANSLATION

PAGES

A G A I N S T BAEDAISAN'S ' D O M N U S ' AGAINST

i-xxii

MARCION I

xxiii-xlvi

. , 1 1

xlvii-liii

„

H

STANZAS AGAINST

liv-lxv

I

lxvi-lxxix

BARDAISAN

lxxx-xc

ON VIRGINITY

xci-cviii

AGAINST M A N I CHRONOLOGICAL INTRODUCTORY INDICES

AND

cx

TABLE

cxi-cxliv

ESSAY TABLES—

T A B L E S OF THE COMPOSITION OF B . M .

ADD.

INDEX

.

OF B I B L I C A L A L L U S I O N S

N O T E S ON THE T E X T GENERAL

INDEX

.

.

OF CERTAIN PASSAGES

14623 .

cxlv-cxlix el-cli oli-clix clx-clxxxii

TEXT

1-229

CORRIGENDA

230-237

SYRIAC

AGAINST BARDAISAN'S ' DOMNUS ' AGAINST M A R C I O N I

1

.

50

II.

103

ILL

117

STANEAS AGAINST BARDAISAN

143

ON

170

VIRGINITY

AGAINST M A N I

.

CORRIGENDA TO V O L . I AND V O L . II

190

230

SYRIAC

TEXT

TRANSLATION. AGAINST BARDAISAN'S "DOMNUS." A

DISCOURSE MADE BY THE BLESSED SAINT P. l. EPHRAIM AGAINST THE DISCOURSE WHICH IS CALLED " OF DOMNUS," WHICH WAS COMPOSED BY BARDAISAN AGAINST THE PLATONISTS.

K N O W , 0 my beloved, that in (?) everything it is right for us to know the (just) Measure of everything. For by this knowledge all [advantages] are found, just as . . . all injuries are produced by all arrogance. For whenever we know 1 how to approach anything by measure there is nothing that is able to hurt us. For even those hurtful things are not able to hurt us as long as we approach them 2 by measure. But that thou mayest know how great is the victory of correct measure, see that nowhere does it put us in the wrong ; for even in the case of fire, though it is a harmful thing, when our bodies P. 2. approach it by measure an advantage is produced for us out of its harmfulness. And if without measure starving men make use of food death is produced for them out of its (i.e. the food's) vital force. 0 correct measure, which produces out of hurtful things advantages for those who may be h u r t ! For as heavy burdens teach weakness to excuse itself from (lifting) any weight which it is unable to bear, so it would be right also for an uninstructed imagination to refrain from an investigation in which it is unable to speak convincingly. For some have been found who are wise in something or other, but

1 Read t i • •>*-• for p. 1, 1. 12. 2 Read ^mltoA for eni»o_V, p. 1, 1. 21. B

S. EPHRAIM'S

ii

REFUTATIONS

have come near to be detected 1 in directions where they themselves are not wise. For their boldness has made them think t h a t because they are wise in one direction, so also they are wise in all directions.

P. 3.

P. 4. 1 10.

1 22.

But any craftsman who makes a promise about any craft which has not been learnt by him is reproved when he approaches the work which belongs to t h a t craft. But if a craft is able to reprove him who does not know how to deal with it, investigation is not too feeble to reprove also by its silence the ignorant man who desires to approach it (i.e. investigation) as one who knows. For wise men, perfect and righteous, have humbled themselves t h a t they might be as though they were ignorant men even in t h a t which they knew—not t h a t they wished to destroy their knowledge, but t h a t by making themselves needy the Fulness which is enough to fill u p all our needs might incline towards them. If therefore such just men as knew were not arrogant, how shall we sinful ones be arrogant in such matters as we do not know ? For whoever comes forward humbly as a learner, t h a t humility of his places him under the weakness of confessing t h a t he does not know ; but whoever comes forward with arrogance as one who knows, he is one who has exalted himself above (the limit of) moderation, because arrogance knows not how to be subject to moderation. For if arrogance allowed itself to be subject to moderation, it would not be arrogance at all. For arrogance cannot be arrogance unless it exalts itself [above its proper measure . . . for a man is not to be blamed (by being asked) why he does not know something which he could not know~\. But if he says ' I know,' whereas it is known that he cannot know it, [then his arrogance is really arrogance, because though he does not know] he is unwilling to be humble. . . . And if he teaches another. . . . For he who is humble and learns from a teacher, he is able . . .

Pg 1 27.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Thus the Greeks spoke words of knowledge and . . . they said also various things t h a t were in [metaphor] and as if in parables, and these without the tradition (of their meaning) no one [can] know . . . , 1

For the rendering, see Galatians vi 1, syr.vg.

AGAINST BARDAISAN'S "DOMNUS "

iii

we (?) blame the speaker, because he is not able to know what he p. 6. 1. 9. says. But this which I have mentioned is found in the case of great sages, namely that one confesses ' I do not know.' For this is their great knowledge that when they do not know a thing they confess that they do not know it. For that same knowledge is able to accuse ignorance, because that ignorance cannot accuse itself. For if a man confesses about something that he knows it and again about something else that he does not know it, he gains a victory as about that which he knows. For in both these cases he has spoken the truth, and because he does not lie in either of them his truth is victorious, since it triumphs and defeats fasehood and is crowned. But thou know ¡st that it is said in the book (called) ' Of Domnus ' that " the Platonists say that there are o-w/xara and also a »A (?), p. 39, 1. 39. Read ooou for ,_.OCB (?), p. 40, 1. 46. Read _»»_ii4\re,i for OkJa^rC*, p. 41, 1. 17.

AGAINST BARDAISAN'S " D O M N U S "

xix

when the light of the sun strikes upon it . . . so that when the sun shines upon them the sight 1 (of the eye) which gazes at them wanders. But as for dark-coloured stones and (other) black substances, know that also upon them when the rays strike the light is spread, but (only) on those white substances, which are akin to the light, does the light show its power. Nor again do rays go forth from unpolished bodies or from substances that p. 42. do not glitter, 2 as they go forth from polished objects or from substances that glitter. But as 3 everything which falls into a mirror is seen when it sinks into the midst of the mirror and is thought to belong to the mirror, although it does not belong to it, so also those rays were thought to belong to the mirror, although they did not belong to it, as I have said. But as when hard substances strike against one another a sound is engendered 4 from between them—and it was not the case that that sound was (previously) within them and was inaudible, for it is their nature to engender 4 a sound by striking together—in like manner also (in the case of) the eye and the illuminated object, by the striking of both of them, in combination with one another, sight is engendered 4 in the eye. As therefore heat that goes forth from a fire, and rays from a lamp, and perfume from spices are weakened when they go far from their sources, so also the sight diminishes as it goes to a distance. For (only) in a small measure is perfume deposited P. 43. in a blossom and light in a lamp and heat in a fire ; on this account also they penetrate to a distance (only) in a measure and begin to grow weak as they go to a distance. For (in the case of) fountains of abundant water their flow is even, because there is an abundant and material (lit. solid) outflow. But effulgence perfume, and heat are not corporeal, nor do they really flow like a literal (lit. bound) fountain. For lo ! the voice which is in us is a thing bound within us, and as it goes away it likewise grows faint, and by the mechanism of a trumpet it becomes something Read rf^t-u for re&it_uA (?), p. 41, 1. 33. A word used of gaudy attire in the Life of Rabbula 18919. to p. 42, 1. 2, should be deleted. 1

2

The Note

Read J L M for A A , p. 42, 1. 7. Note, in view of Ephraim's argument against Bardaisan (p. xxii), that the word for ' engender ' is, literally, ' give birth to.' 3

4

XX

44.

S. E P H R A I M ' S

REFUTATIONS

different, 1 by reason of the strength a n d clearness which are added t o it. B u t as when the radiance of a lamp is abundant and copious this amount of light would be able to contend with the long measure of a great distance, so the amount of the sun's light suffices for the measure of all space ; and so also the amount of water (suffices) for the measure of the earth. So, because the extent of the distance is greater in its measure t h a n the amount of the light of the eye, on this account from afar even large objects appear small. For as these things again mix one with another unequally, b u t are . . .

1. 14.

is perceived.

P- 45,

on account of which not even 2 those things which are before the eyes of the man are tested by him, since even the summits and depths of the earth, together with t h e ' s u m m i t and lower parts of the sky, both help a n d harm. For the sky is like a circular belt, t h a t is to say, like an arch, and t h a t which is placed a t its summit does not appear like t h a t which is placed in its lower parts. Let the moon when it rises from the E a s t show how great is its circle and full and . . . its disc. B u t there are those who say t h a t because the moon [¿a affected by the power] of the sun, which is in the West, it (i.e. the moon) appears thus, and . . . a t dawn, when the moon reaches the lowest p a r t [of the West], the light of the sun rises f r o m the E a s t ; and it is not thought . . .

P. 46.

its disc. . . . And again there are those who say t h a t , because it rises f r o m the Ocean, on t h a t account its appearance is great and its disc is glorious and beautiful. B u t I say t h a t , because it rises suddenly and its light shines into the darkness, on t h a t account it appears to the eye to be great, though its size has not received any augmentation (?) and no further radiance has been added t o its light. Thus although these four examples are equal, as I have said, these contrivances which I have enumerated for thee above have not yet failed ; for they are helpful to a certain 1 «CD icA ocd (p. 43,1. 27) seems to be used as the opposite of otn » a cicn " the very same." Cf. p. 46, 1. 40; also p. 198, 11. 7 and 9. 2 Read .At*" (?), for -XJif, p. 45, 1. 15.

AGAINST BARDALSAN'S " D O M N U S " measure.

xxi

For a man calls, and there is a certain measure to

which his voice reaches, but (lit. and) when the contrivance of the trumpet steps in it causes the voice to pass over that former (?) limit.

Oh ! what a thing is Contrivance ! since it makes Nature

to become something different.

And on that account there is

no excuse for the sinner, seeing that Nature itself is compelled to follow the will, when that will desires to compel Nature.

For P. 47.

God created the world and adorned it with natural objects ; and, (yet) if contrivance had not afterwards adorned the world, the world would be a waste.

And that I may bring to thee a testi-

mony from near at hand, consider thy limbs, that is to say, thy senses, and see that God created them as (He created) natural objects which are bound (by necessity).

B u t by the gift which

comes from Him thou teachest thine eye another (kind of) sight, (that) of many books, of seals, of pearls and the like.

Again

thou teachest thy hand to write and to work at a forge and to engrave, and so also (thou teachest) thine ear the hearing of many sounds. And again, as for what Bardaisan says, that " if a perfume or a voice reach to us we should all equally perceive them " — l o ! in the case of the light, which reaches all eyes equally, why does one man see more than another ''.

If he says that (it is) because

of weakness or disease or other things of the same kind, it all tends to show that what he has now failed (to apply, namely) t h a t if a P. IS. perfume approached us equally we should all perceive it equally. For it (sometimes) happens that he who is near a thing does not see it, while another, though he is far off, sees that object which is placed on the (very) eye of the former.

And so likewise (he

errs) in that he says concerning the voice also that " it reaches the ear of (every) man equally, if his ear is not dull." B u t from this very thing learn that if, moreover, thou diffusest a perfume by measure in all directions thou wilt see that all (men) are not able to smell equally ; nor do they hear equally, nor . . . foods touch all mouths equally, and yet all mouths i. 33. do not taste equally S£|

«¡€

B u t so Bardaisan juggled 1

J^S 1

even by names and supposed that P. 49.

Lit. ' sailed about' : see p. 221, 1. 35, and delete the Note, p. 48,1. 48"

xxii

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

the nature (of things) is like their names. For because ' light ' in the Aramaic language is called as masculine, and ' eye 5 feminine in the same,1 he hastily coupled them together in a foolish phrase, saying that " Light, like a male, sows perception in the Eye." And lo, he, Bardaisan, calls the moon feminine 2 in the Aramaic language : when 3 therefore (?) the eye looks at the moon, does that female sow perception in a female ? Well, then, because in the Greek language ' sun ' and ' eye ' are both called masculine, when the eye looks at the sun a male sows perception in a male, according to the teaching of Bardaisan ! p 1 2 3

"i

Read « a cn-a i t n M I for wi. t Q, p. 49, 1. 7. ' Moon ' is either masculine or feminine in Syriac.

i—i ..1 i. TUP 1

B e a d RCVCNC^A*

f o r RCICNOXAO

rT -i. L

?

O C D I , p . 49, 11. 18, 19.

END OF DISCOURSE COMPOSED AGAINST BARDAISAN.

AGAINST MAKCION I. ANOTHER

(DISCOURSE) AGAINST T H E TEACHINGS.

(FALSE)

P.60.

To the true Scriptures of the Church all the Teachings bear witness t h a t they are true ; but as for the Scriptures belonging to the Teachings, only the Teachings bear witness concerning them, because the Scriptures of the Church do not appeal to the testimony of the Scriptures of the Teachings. Moreover to our Scriptures the Jews bear witness, for in every place. . . . For inasmuch as God knew t h a t the Teachings were about to go forth into the world He worked great Signs beforehand . . . and the dividing of the sea and the cloud, and the Pillar and the Quails r i and the Manna and all the Signs 1 and all the Wonders. . . . $

$

$

sje

$

$

He

in order t h a t they might bear witness concerning t h a t people p. t h a t it was the people of God. . . . Moreover (to ?) other countries some of them were scattered formerly, and (they bear witness) to-day concerning the aforesaid Jews and concerning their laws, as t h a t (passage) in which it s a y s , 2 ' The LORD h a t h brought evil upon this place, as He said.' But the Edicts which had been written by Nebuchadnezzar 3 and by Darius were deposited among the archives of the aforesaid kingdom first of all, and then they were? sent to the (various) countries. And lo ! also the kings of the countries bear witness concerning 4 the books of the Hebrews in the chronicles which 1

Bead

o^cc" | A ^ a

t* 1 »Tin

11. 28-30. 2 Jeremiah xl 2 fi. 3 Read i ^ i a ^ a j v i , p. 5], 1. 28. 4

Read

•V

(?) for

.

xxiii

_»ciAaa | i f i a a A o ,

1, p. 51, 1. 37.

p.

50,

¡_ 4.

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

xxiv

belong to them, according to that which is said 1 in Ezra, ' Learn and see that this city is a warlike city from of old,' together with that other (passage in) which he says, ' Learn again and see that P- 52.

Darius commanded concerning this city that it should be built.'

2

Thus the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Egypt were inscribed in the archives of Aegyptus ; and, again, the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Babylon were in the annals belonging to the kings of Babylon, and also (in those) belonging to the Greeks, and the Romans likewise, as well as (in) those of the aforesaid country of Jerusalem.

For lo ! even to this day

Tablets 3 which are even now inscribed and set up bear witness to the people of the aforesaid city that they must not venture to enter within their limits.4

All these witnesses which I have

enumerated to thee, together with the aforesaid teachings (and) together with the Hebrews, are witnesses to our Scriptures that they are true.

But to the Scriptures of the aforesaid teachings,

as' I have stated before, those teachings alone bear witness. And would that they all bore witness to the Scriptures of one another ! 5

For even if this were thought to be in their favour,

inasmuch as their witnesses were many, yet it would be all against them that the testimony of each one of them about P. 53.

his fellow was a denial of his own teaching.

For how could

he be veracious who proclaims Seven Gods, when another asserts after him in confirmation who proclaims only Two Gods ?

Or

how could he who proclaims Three Gods assert (anything) in confirmation of both of them ? Thus alHhe teachings are refuted by the Jews, because the Scriptures belonging to the Jews are truer than all the teachings.

But the Jews themselves, who

by means of their true Scriptures have been able to overcome many teachings, are refuted by the Church. . . . 1. 29.

Therefore to 6 the one God whom we proclaim the Jews bear Read pe'v^ssrC-T for ifisapC-l, p. 51, 1. 40. Ezra iv 15, vi 1 ft. (paraphrased). 3 This refers to the (rrijAai set up round the Temple ; one of these was discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. Ephraim probably knew of them through Joseph us (B J v 5, 2). 4 I.e. Foreigners un- not to enter tho Jews' sacred limits. The MS. clearly reads otaj^nc^jjA*, p. 52, ]. 42. 6 This is meant ironically. 1

2

6

R e a d *JUL1 (?) for

p. 53, 1. 29.

AGAINST

MARCION

I.

xxv

witness together with the Marcionites (?) . . . Bardaisan together with Mani.

For though Bardaisan said [seven Entities

constitute]

the world he nevertheless said concerning the L a w that it was given b y God.

A n d Mani again, though he said that

[He]

who spoke b y the Prophets exists as the result of a ' m i x t u r e / nevertheless said concerning H i m that H e is in heaven. Marcion,

though

he

introduced

a

' Stranger,'

And

nevertheless,

(while) he was crying out all the [time (?)] about the [. . .] of P. the ' Maker ' and about His preaching and about the people t h a t is His, y e t our Scriptures that are in the hands of the Marcionites were bearing witness on [our] behalf.

B u t the blasphemies [of]

the Marcion[ites]—it is [the books of] the Marcionites only t h a t bear witness to t h e m . 1 The followers [of Marcion] therefore name our God ' the Just One ' : y e t we see that His worshippers are afflicted in this world, and His prophets were . . .

in the region of the Maker . . .

but on the other hand (lit. side) we see t h a t the unjust and the doers of evil enjoy themselves, and H e is found to be good towards evil men and something different towards those who are His own. For He promises

2

enjoyments to those who keep His com-

mandments, and lo ! afflictions surround them. concerning the unjust 'Cursed art thou.' . . .

A n d H e said

A n d he who is

3

blessed according to the L a w runs on foot in front of him who is cursed in the Scriptures ; for Elijah the prophet ran in front of A h a b the

4

unjust, while A h a b the . . . was sitting in his chariot. P. 55.

Again, the prophets of B a a l were battening at Jezebel's table, and the true prophets [were] housing themselves

5

in caves.

The followers (?) of Marcion say concerning each of these things, that is, concerning the justice of the Just One and concerning the grace of their own (God), t h a t it did not come and bring relief to the just in this world ('!).

B u t [see t h a t ] the grace

of the Maker [lo,] is extended even over the followers of Marcion. 1

For t h e details of t h e reconstruction of t h i s p a s s a g e , see t h e list of

Corrigenda.

T h e P a l i m p s e s t is to me (F. C. B . ) illegible.

2

Read

- » J n k j t . « , p. 54, 1. 35.

3

Read

v y t w » f o r v y - s s o , p. 54, 1. 42.

4

Read

t i c v - i . f o r r c d a x _ v p. 54, 1. 47.

5

Read

..

omT

1\

for

ra^u-a

*

xa-iA, p.

55,

1. 9.

xxvi

P. 56.

P. 57.

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

And if they say that an Alien Force is opposed to them, who is it, on the other hand, who is opposed to Mercy ? And, again, who constrained Him that His mercy should afford a covering to Philosophers and Magians and all manner of doctrines ? And (as for) the babes and the seed-corn and the plants and the possessions of the followers of Marcion, who causes them to grow ? And who sends down the rain for them, or who causes the sun to shine for them ? Who commands the earth to bear them, and governs the sky for them ? Thou seest that all the grace of our Maker is (shown) towards the followers of Marcion and moreover towards those who are ungrateful like them ; but in the case of the righteous and the prophets the contrary of these things (takes place), namely humiliation and ignominy. For Jeremiah the prophet is cast into a miry pit, while Zedekiah, an unjust man, is living in luxury. Or can it then have been the case that an Alien severe One [came and was favouring] the wicked and oppressing the good % But it was not the Stranger—who did not exist—that had . . . already announced earthly things to the simple-minded, while, on the other hand, among all of us he 1 taught the likeness of true things by means of his faithful ones and by means of his righteous ones ; by means of these two (methods he taught) two classes of persons, namely the class of the mature (?), and another (consisting) of the simple-minded. For he gladdened the simpleminded with promises of the earth, and oppressed (?) the mature by severe afflictions. But let us see to what our own affliction is like ; is it like that of [the simple-minded] or that of his prophets ? If we are like the prophets in our afflictions, how do the followers of Marcion say that (only) in recent times have afflictions been announced % And, again, let us ask the Jews also, that is to say, the Jews and the righteous ones who were among them, Whom ought we to resemble \ [The others] 2 rather than them we ought to resemble. Let them then look at us and at the righteous, and let them see if we are like them in our afflictions. And if we are like the righteous in our afflictions, it is also the fact that the Law is 1 Bead • ft^ni for t ^ l a a , p. 56, 1. 26. 1 Read for ricn nil, p. 57, 1. 5.

AGAINST MARCION I.

xxvii

with us. For unto whom was it right that the Law of the afflicted and destitute ones should be given, to us the afflicted and destitute, or to those who even until to-day are expecting to go up to Jerusalem, and are eagerly looking till now for the milk and honey % Thou seest, therefore, O Marcion, that if in the midst of all this maturity the simple-mindedness of the Jews has not been outgrown (lit. weaned), since these (qualities) still exist in them, how could numerous countries attain to maturity, seeing that one country (i.e. the country of the Jews) with all this exertion 1 was not able to attain to maturity ? But if the associates of Marcion, whom we have left behind (in our discussion), come and agree with him and say to us, If the Creator was one and knew that Adam would sin against Him, p. 58. why then did the Creator create ?—let all the sects (lit. teachings) know that they too are included in this (objection). For why did not their Gods come or prevent (it), so that he (i.e. Adam) should not be created, or so that they might set right and assist that which had been created ? For why did not their Gods prevent the Maker from creating that which is not good ? And if they did not prevent Him at that time, who will send (?) after them to-day ? And perhaps it was for that reason that God caused Adam to dwell for nine hundred and thirty years outside the enclosure of the Tree of Life, in order that it might be seen that there was no other God who could be found to break into the enclosure, which the Just One had enclosed by means of the Cherub and the point of the sword,2 and to bring him (i.e. Adam) in. For if there had been another God more compassionate than this one and stronger than our Maker, he would have broken into the enclosure—which was not then broken into— and would have brought the mortal Adam into the presence of the Tree of Life, that he might eat thereof, so that, just as in consequence of his eating of the Tree of Knowledge we all die, P. 69. likewise in consequence of his eating of the Tree of Life we might all live by means of him. But if he remained for nine hundred For w i » o i t f i , 1. 39, see p. 100, 1. 4. The ' Cherub ' and the ' point of the sword ' are taken verbatim from Gen. iii 24 syr.vg, but the enclosure (or ' hedge ') of the Tree of Life is not a Biblical phrase. 1 a

xxviii

P. 60.

P. 61.

S. E P H R AIM'S REFUTATIONS

and thirty years outside the enclosure of Paradise and did not find any other God to bring him inside the enclosure of Paradise, and afterwards (God) dissolved him and caused him to return to his dust, and no other God was found to raise him from the dust 1 —acknowledge, 0 Marcion, the justice of Him who said, I am God and there is none beside Me ! But if Marcion says that the sole reason that the Stranger did not come previously was that at the last his grace might be seen, [let Mm know] that God had already shown a small measure of grace in connection with His justice, so that His great grace was not deemed strange when it was manifested in its time. And therefore He who showed a small measure of grace towards Adam a t that time—when no strange God had shown his grace towards him—is known to be the same (God) who showed great grace at this time, (a grace) of which they say that it is the grace of the Stranger. For God had decreed this in His justice concerning Adam, (saying) t h a t 1 In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' For our God decreed justly and in order that He might in His love warn Adam who was existing in a good state, lest he should exist in an evil state. But when Adam did not take warning and fell from grace, Justice overtook him, according as it (had) decreed that ' In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' But God turned in [the way] of grace and tempered the harshness of justice, that Adam might not die that very day but that he might live nine hundred and thirty years [and] then die. [.As jHe gave to Adam] nine hundred and thirty years at that time on account of His compassion, (so) He has kept him alive even now in the life everlasting on accouht of His grace. For He gave to him in the beginning a temporal life, in order to show that. . . . For He gave to Adam in mercy—which (signifies that) He gave to him by means of our Lord—life everlasting. But if they apply the term ' strangeness ' to 2 every (?) grace, 3 then (?) also in relation to Adam ' strangeness ' was displayed. For the same (God) decreed that, ' In the day that thou eatest 1 2 3

«-it is Pael Imperative, p. 59, 1. 20. Read A_aA (?) for J l \ , p. 61, 1. 3. Read -Arc t->Ua ('!), p. 61, 1. 4.

AGAINST MARCION

I.

xxix

thou shalt die '—and how is He found keeping him alive for nine hundred a n d thirty years ? About John, again, from whence . . . let be asked whether J o h n did come, or no. . . J o h n did come, from whence hast thou Perhaps he says from the testimony to Isrr. .

the Jews therefore . [If he says] t h a t this, 0 Marcion ? 1.38. .

* * * * * * p 62 * The Jews say t h a t in the days of the Messenger the King's Son 1. 6. also comes, seeing t h a t J o h n also when he [heard] the report of [Istr] t h a t he had come [asked] him, ' H a s t thou then come, or look we for another ? ' 2 And he (i.e. J o h n the Baptist) does not say, ' they look,' b u t ' we look,' in order to show t h a t he and his contemporaries, in his own days and in those of his contemporaries, were looking for Him. If therefore the Jews say t h a t if Elijah comes the Messiah also has come, and (as) J o h n thought concerning I s u , when H e came, t h a t He was he, was not this because he firmly believed t h a t he was to come in his own days, even J o h n ' s ? On t h a t account he thought concerning Him, when H e came, t h a t it was he, or did n o t even J o h n know when the Messiah was to come ? And why then did he (i.e. John) come ? If he came to smooth the way before Him, then he came to clear away stones. B u t if he came to call sinners to repentance a n d to baptize the P. 63. repentant, he was sent to purge away sins by means of water. I t is evident t h a t these were prepared as it were for the guestchamber of H i m t h a t was to come, and it is manifest t h a t H e has come. If He dwells in pure hearts, He is therefore spiritual; b u t if He who was coming was not spiritual, because H e was David's Son, let him (i.e. Marcion) explain to us which was the way t h a t J o h n (was) smoothing for Him. For in honour of kings, or kings' sons, ways are levelled and stones cleared away before them. B u t before (the coming of) this One he said t h a t minds should be purified. W h a t is probable ? T h a t David's Son . . , 3 1 I s u . I t is clear f r o m these treatises t h a t this transliteration of t h e Greek '17|s iitv fi-q. 2 See Gen. iii 24, and above, p. 58. 3 Read as in the text, and delete the note to p. 87, 1. 37.

xl

P- 88.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

His sanctuary and send them (i.e. Moses and Elijah) to guard a mountain in which there was nothing 1 If He did not set forth some symbol there for us, let them tell us w h a t 1 such persons as Moses and Elijah were doing there. And if they say, ' You are asking us concerning your own (affairs) also,' then leave that (question) of ours as to what they were doing, and tell us (?) your own (opinion), namely on what account Isu went up thither. Was it in order to fight that he went up thither ? . . . did he make war against the Maker or . , . ? . . *

1. 38. 1. 46. P. 89.

1. 12.

1. 27.

*

*

*

*

. *

*

These [two, why] were they sent ? For the Maker had myriads of angels, if to make war [He desired] . . . Or were they with him to say to him (i.e. to Isu) : " If thou 2 art really buying, in order to buy mankind, 3 what is the price 4 of mankind ? And if thou art taking mankind, why didst thou beforehand take the Twelve and the Seventy-two 5 from the [flock] 6 of another 1 . . . 7 Or can it be that thou art taking mankind hence ? And art thou not, lo, he t h a t 8 said that before the foundation of the world thou knewest them ? 9 Why then 10 didst thou not take them before, when as yet [thou didst not intend to buy ?] " . . . if again they returned and said to him " [As for] mankind, because thou art about to buy them, 11 if thou didst take thein beforehand, nothing hinders (?) : this mountain that thou hast gone up—and why ? 12—was this mountain also really required for thee ? And if it is required for thee, give 1 On this use of iu^a.1 see Wright's Joshua the Stylite, chap. xvi. line 1 (p. 11 of the Translation). 2 Read iiJre' for i u K , p. 89, 1. 1. 3 Or, ' men,' and so throughout the paragraph. * Read . o o u a * for . ocri i a» T, p. 89, 1. 3. 5 Read i • •> -i t o for •> • i r o, p. 89, 1. 8. 6 This word (p. 89, I. 9) is illegible, but for the idea of ' flocks ' and ' shepherds ' in Marcionite sources, see p. 106, 1. 40 ff. ' The three illegible lines must express something like " before the price was agreed upon." i—i r -i 8 Read i>iaai«'i | ooo kj|*», p. 89, 11. IS, 16. 9 See Eph. i 4. 1 0 Supply - » A (or p. 89, 1. 19. r -i r -! n 1 1 Read »&» (or ) for * * f s a l i , p. 89, 1. 21. 12 For i f i n \ l vy-.nf, see p. 91, 1. 23.

xli

AGAINST MARCION I.

the price of it, seeing 1 thou hast gone up ; and if it is not intended 2 by thee to buy the mountain, get down oil i t ; why wilt thou stir up enmity for thyself with the Maker about nothing ? But the price of mankind will not be found by thee to give to the Maker, for He has given no pledge." 3 If such words were P. 90. put forward {lit. were in the midst), and things similar to them, [then] it was for war that they had come to him. But if Isu came to (wage) war, he was not a good Being, for he did not purchase . . . it would not be right for a good Being to injure, j. much less those whom he had not yet even purchased ! 4 And were it not that our Maker is good and there is no end to his kindness,5 He would surely not have trusted the Stranger so as to give him men to accompany him, when as yet he had not paid their price to Him. Or was there, forsooth, a bargain % And did Isu say to the Maker, ' Give me men, and I will not depart from Thy house, that is, Thy creation, until I pay Thee their price ' ? And did not the Maker learn from the descent of Isu that he was also to ascend, so that as there was no one who perceived him when he came down, in like manner he w ould remove those whom he wished to purchase and carry (them) off without any one perceiving him ? But perhaps the Maker p. bj, said to him these very things, and Isu returned answer to Him and said to Him, ' If I carry (them) off, as Thou thinkest, in virtue of that which I did when coming down, those souls which I am purchasing from Thee, how can I take them up 6 without Thy consent ? And that we may not explore too far into the perverse tale of Marcion, this 7 pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger in the mountain,—the glory moreover, which He shewed them in the mountain, for what purpose (was it shewn) \ Can it be 1

Read

r t ' r o i f o r ocb-t, p . 89, 1. 40.

2

Read

"C^-i^-aa mArfo, p.

3

Read

r

p.

90, 1!. 4

„a.

Ifii-Jst 3-4 ;

Delete « d

t

the

89, 1. 4 1 .

| —aoirf

r d

for the phrase, compare note

to

p.

90, 1.

16:

for

i^iu-s*

|

the

MS.

is

quite

see 1 K i n g s v i i i 2 7 .

¿«-»K rtd . . . -to.««» (sic),

6

Read

s

Read v y * *

7

Read

^

« J t D for

~> f o r v y » * ^

p . 90, II. 2 1 , 2 2 .

^ "», p . 9 1 , 1. 1 4 .

p . 9 1 , ]. 1 7 .

*

relacLai - ^ » T r f , p.

1152a.

clear,

and

for

xlii

P. 92.

1. 39. 1. 42. P. 93. 1- 10.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

(that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received ? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him. And if thou sayest that neither for a sale nor for a bargain had Moses, etc., come to Him, then why had they come to Him % Can it be that they had come to fight ? And very likely it is that men would come to fight against God ! And which of them is it who strikes (the blow), or which is it who is struck ? Or did he on this account take his Apostles with him and cause them to ascend (the mountain), in order that they might wage war with the Prophets ? And which of the sides conquered there or lost ? But that battle, what was it for ? Can it have been on account of the love of their Gods ? And why would not those Gods themselves contend for the love of mankind ? For if the Gods are at peace, why do they contend about mankind ? . . . For if created things are from One, unadvisedly 1 did Isu interpose, . . . If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and . . . against his disciples and against him [who said], ' This is my Son and my Beloved,' 2 [for] He had sent only two against them. B u t [if] they say, ' If . . . is it not clear that because he was very strong on that account he did not overcome [him ? How] could two men [overcxrme] three ? [Were they just] two men— and not [both] alive, but one alive and one dead—to fight [a God] ! 3 Was the Maker then really afraid to come, and on that account indeed did not come ? So that if He had come, He would have been killed ! 4 Or can then a Divine Nature suffer pain, either Read V —• ^ - - f o r Jw»redcu», p. 92, 1. 4 0 : see p. xliv, note 2 . Luke ix 35, as in syr.C, and often elsewhere in Ephraim. s Read tr-mApf for « * * re-, p. 93, 1. 20. 4 Read, apparently, tnA for rfora, p. 93, 1. 3, i.e. " the Stranger would have killed the Maker." 1 2

AGAINST MARCION I.

xliii

the Maker's or the Stranger's ? And if they did not suffer, why did the Maker not come against him % Or can it be t h a t He really knew t h a t Moses, etc., would be sufficient to meet the attack of the Stranger, and therefore He did not come ? For lo, even the Stranger did not contend with them, and it is clear t h a t he really perceived t h a t they were stronger than he, and on t h a t account he remained quiet (and refrained) from engaging in battle. And as to his preparing battle with the Maker, if [his desires hankered]1 after men, why was he [lo,] 2 unable to P- 94. create this ? And if to create men he was too weak, how much more was he too weak to wage war against God ! Again, the Stranger who proclaimed there, ' This is my Son and my Beloved/ whom did He wish to cause to hear (it) ? Can it be t h a t He was calling to Moses, etc., t h a t He might make them His disciples 1 Or t h a t He might warn them not to say anything to him (i.e. to Istr) ? And from which heavens did He call ? Was it from the heaven of the Maker ? And why did He descend to it 1 If, aa it were, on account of the aforesaid Maker the Stranger descended to it, then He did not snatch away men only but also the heaven. Or can it be t h a t the Stranger purchased the angels who were in the heaven together with the heaven ? But if those who were above were not purchased by Him, why did He pass through their abodes ? But if (the voice) came t h a t it might be a witness to the Son, who had no witness on earth, lo ! seeing t h a t the voice came from the heaven of the Maker, who is to tell us t h a t he is P. 95. not the Son of the Maker, in a case where the voice which came was coming from the heaven of the Maker, especially when the mountain was the mountain of the Maker, and the cloud of Moses, etc., belonged to the Maker, and the prophets likewise who were on the mountain (were the prophets) of the Maker ? For if the voice had come from the heaven of the Stranger perhaps it would have been reasonable for us to think t h a t in order t h a t mankind might not be mistaken, owing to the mountain and the cloud and Moses, etc., on t h a t account the voice was coming t o them from the heaven of the Stranger, so as to overthrow t h e opinion which they had concerning Isxr. B u t if even the voice 1

2

P. 94, 1. 3, is illegible, but the sense seems to be as above.

ri Read rem « 1 for K » nei, p. 94,1. 5.

xliv

P. 96.

P 97

p 98 1. 17.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

which came was from the heaven of the Maker, it did not by any means disown him (by asserting) that he was not the Son of the Maker, but it actually confirmed it that he is the Son of the Maker, and the servants of his Father's house, who had come to do him honour, were witnesses (thereto). For if there had been a battle, the Maker would not have remained silent, He who even when there was another God did not refrain from (saying) ' I am God and there is none beside.' And if when there were idols, whose nature showed (lit. answered) that they were not gods, He was proclaiming ' I am He and there is none beside,' (can we suppose that) in a case when a God was warring against a God the Creator went into a hiding-place, that the creation might go astray after the Stranger ? For if in connection with idols He had been silent, (yet) here it would be right for Him to cry out. How much more when He was not silent even towards dead idols ! But seeing that the questions relating to a war have, as in a (real) war, overcome and silenced the question of purchase, now that the tale about a war has come to an end, let us turn to the question of purchase. Explain to us then, What is the purchase which the Stranger made, and from whom did He purchase it ? And, moreover, by means of what did He purchase it ? And that thing by means of which he purchased that which He purchased, of what nature was it 1 Was that which He gave of the nature of the aforesaid Good Being, or did He really 1 create (something) and give (it) ? And was not that which the Stranger created fairer than that which the Maker created for Himself ? And if that which He (i.e. the Stranger) created for Himself was fairer, why did He sell unadvisedly and become a laughing-stock ? And if that which He gave was something smaller, the weakness of the Stranger was seen in His creative action. And how was the wise Just Being persuaded to give to the Stranger something great 3 in return for something small ? . . . Was it . . . bodies that are from 4 H u l e that he bought, or souls ? And i f it was souls, 1 2 3 4

R e a d i f i - a » for i r t a i u , p. 96, 1. 38. Read i m f • t for AxjtcA, p. 97, last line, and delete the note. Read for J U a a , p . 97, 1. 10. Read

r -1 1—i

fo \

p. 98, 1. 20.

xlv

AGAINST MARCION I.

then why [did he not buy] the bodies ? . . . they say that 1. 32. because the souls had been polluted (lit. had become turbid) He came to purify them. But if those souls were not polluted, then did not the Stranger who purchased them make a mistake about them ? And even if 1 the souls were polluted, on which account he came 2 to buy them, [was he. not alien to their nature ?] * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

P . 99.

And if they should say that ' He purifies the nature of 1. 8. the Souls ' . . . because ' a fire is kindled in mine anger and 1. 19it will burn unto the lowest Sheol.' 3 If He is a nature from whom fire is kindled and it then consumes Him in His turn, (in the case of) everything else 4 which is found to belong to that nature fire will therefore be kindled from it and will then consume it in its turn. For if thou bringest some of the water of the sea into a royal city bitterness is (still) in it. And so too the souls which (come) from the Maker are polluted as the source (lit. root) from which those souls came is polluted. For it is unlikely that they will say that the fruits are changed when the root of the fruits is not changed. And if they say that that root P. also is changed, then how 5 did He (i.e. the Stranger) not exert Himself in the case of the root as in the case of the fruits, that the perfect goodness 6 of the Stranger might be proclaimed 1 But the Apostle says,7 ' Eve shall live on account of her children ' : then the Maker will have lived 8 on account of the souls which (came) from Him. Or did the Maker not wish to live thus ? And how did the souls which (came) from Him consent to live ? But if the nature of the souls is the same, their will also is the 1

Read

p. 98, 1. 40.

for ?

R e a d r e ^ r f for p. 98, 1. 42. Deut. x x x i i 22. T h e use of this verse b y Marcionites as a prooft e x t is attested also b y E z n i k ( J . M. Schmid's tr., p. 200). 4 F o r IT* L •> I R F X a . , p. 99,1. 27, read perhaps I&JC.1FC* X a , i.e. every kind (or s species '). 5 R e a d rta->pe"o (sic) for i ^ i n l o , p. 100, 1. 3, and delete the note. 6 Read rai»i\_a\ for e o A > o n . \ , p. 100, 1. 7. 7 1 T i m . ii 15 : « r u l L » (p. 100,1. 11) is right, and t h e note should be deleted. T h e reading and interpretation of the passage agrees with E p h r a i m ' s own Commentary (Ephr.anre in E p p . Pauli, p. 248). i—i t—i 2

3

8

Read

for j-a.cn rC^it ¥, p. 100, 11. 11, 12.

xlvi

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

same. And if their will is different, their nature also is strange, and they are not from the Maker. And let them tell us whence are those souls; for it is probable that they are not from the Maker. For He would not sell them (if they were really His), because He would not hate His own nature and love a nature which was not His own. And if He was selling His nature for something which was not akin to His nature, there is a great kinship between Him and the Stranger, for lo ! one affection is found in both of them ; and moreover one will belongs to both P. 101.

P

^Qg

of them, namely that the Just One should love the nature of the Stranger and sell some of His possessions to Him, and that the Stranger should love the nature of the Just One and purchase from Him. And it will also be (considered) that that nature of the Just One, which is bought as being something precious, surpasses (the other) ; for if the nature of the Just One were not more excellent than that of the Stranger, the Stranger would not have actually purchased it. But what did the Stranger give to those whom He purchased ? And if He gave them a kingdom, can it be that He gave them one greater than that of Elijah and Enoch ? And why then did He not bring with Him some of His good things hither also ? Or (was it) because our domain is not worthy of them, (and) did He on that account not even introduce them into our domain ? In that case they are greater than the aforesaid ISTJ, inasmuch as our domain is worthy of Isu and unworthy of His (i.e. the Stranger's) good things. And if (it was) in order that they might not be defiled, then he (i.e. Isu) was defiled when he entered our domain. . . . 3|6

*

*

*

*

*

E N D OF DISCOURSE AGAINST THE (FALSE)

*

TEACHINGS.

AGAINST MAKCION

II. *

P. 103.

about which Zechariah says, ' Lo ! thy King cometh unto thee,' I. 5. in order to show us (?) that he is a king. And that other (passage) which Daniel uttered, 1 ' One like a son of men came, and to him He gave the kingdom.' And one (coming) was in humility, as all the Prophets bear witness about [it], and the other in [exaltjation, as the Scriptures bear witness *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

P. 104.

But just as, 0 Marcion, when David [mentioned] the Messiah l. 19. who is (foretold) in the Law, our Lord proved from David that he [i.e. the Messiah) is not David's son—and the matter remained in doubt among the Scribes—in like manner, when John recognised our Lord. . . . *

*

*

*

*

*

*

1 4 3

And when [he] explained that he is David's son that cometh, how being David's son is he the Lord of David, seeing that David P. 105. testifies and our Lord confirms ? As Malachi testifies concerning John, ' Behold I send my messenger before thee,' and our Lord confirms it that John was Elijah,* g i v e me evidence from the other Scriptures that John is [the messenger] of whom Malachi spake. Therefore according to the testimony of David and the confirmation of [our Lord], David's son, concerning this son of David [and] about this Lord of [David], are there then two Messiahs or two natures ? For [if in some respects he is the son of David] and in some respects the lord of David, is it not [clear that the 1 Or, ' He came like a son of men ' : this peculiar phrase is t h a t of syr.vg, Dan. vii 13. 2 Read • o A r r a_>aca f o r reLtAwa a a , p. 105,1. 10.

xlvii

xlviii

S. E P H R A I M ' S

REFUTATIONS

two natures come together and] are mingled as one, and in relation to the manhood (he is) the Messiah and in relation to the Godhead [he is lord}. P . 10G.

1. 30.

P. 107.

P. 108.

For why was a body required for God ? *

*

*

*

*

*

*

. . . so that if ye believe and do not doubt and " if there is in you belief," is it false belief, like (the belief) of that blind man 1 or the belief of strangeness ? " Because John was near to die, he sent his flock by the hand of two under-shepherds to the Lord of the flock : our Lord began to teach concerning him—' Did ye go out to see a great man on account of his raiment ? ' " This man, the meek and humble, and, if not, a trembling reed 2 shaken by every wind, does he not thus go astray [a little], and is bent and beaten about by all manner of reports \ Because he knew whose coming he announced (lit. before whom he announced), for the witness of the truth and the herald of the kingdom of the Lord of the kingdom is taught by the truth. If our Lord Istr, therefore, bore witness to John that he was meek, let us leam from this humility which of the Messiahs the humble herald resembles (lit. approaches), that Messiah (who is) the source of humility, or that one at whose side thousands fall. For it is necessary that the herald of the dispensation (lit. time) should be himself similar to the dispensation. But Malachi says, The messenger of the covenant, lo ! he cometh, and who 3 endureth the day in which he cometh % ' But if the herald is humble and meek, and he who is heralded is set on high and exalted, lo, in this also there is strangeness ! But (as for) our Lord who says, ' John is greater than all who are born of women,' not because he saw the greatness of the herald, as ye say, that it was great and splendid like that of him who was heralded, (it was not) oil account of this that He said (it). Either give us the splendour of John which was eminently great as (befitted) that of the herald who (went) before the Pre-eminent One, or explain to us why our Lord called him great. For even as all the prophets were ' just,' like Him 1 I.e. the blind man who called Jesus ' son of D a v i d ' (Luke x v i i i 38). P . 106, 1. 17, appears t o read ' T h y faith hath saved thee ' (Luke x v i i i 42).

2 Read 3

. T i for IT*1 . •>, p. 107, 1. 1.

R e a d c-xaa for cisa (misprint), p. 107, 1. 30.

xlix

AGAINST MARCION II.

who sent them, so also this man, His herald, is like Him who is heralded. For if the greatness of him who is heralded is not shown in the announcement concerning him, who will believe that he is a great one ? And if He performed signs, read (of them), and if He worked miracles, declare (them). For (with regard to) those messengers whom our Lord sends at the last and that token which appears before that terrible coming, is the sign (o-^ciov) thereof terrible and glorious like the thing itself, or can it be that it is alien to Him in His lowliness ? But it was not Moses or one of the prophets who said concerning John " He is greater than all who are born of women." What is there about him 1 that magnifies John ? But can it be that the bonds of Herod magnify him, or that the head-asking 2 of the daughter of Herodias exalts him, or that the executioner confirms for him (the application of) that (passage), ' Who can endure the day in which he cometh ? ' A herald who was humbled p. 109. and slain came before Him who comes on the clouds to destroy the slayers, and a lowly messenger who did not stand up for himself was sent before the King before whom no created beings can stand ! And he with whose head the girl played, 3 who will believe that he was the apostle of t h a t 4 Stone which will cause all falsehood to pass away ? 5 . . . and let us bring forward the aspects of the two Messiahs, and let us look at the aspect of John and see which Messiah he resembles—that Stranger [in whose] days 6 he came beforehand, or this (Messiah) who is in the Law, of whom as yet not even a rumour had been heard ; for even from . . , and proximity (?) it was possible to learn their true nature. Set therefore the two Messiahs over against one another, and set John between (them) ; with whom then does the slain herald agree, with the slayer or with the slain one % Whom does the meek and [despised] one resemble ? Him who was 1

Lit. ' this set in the midst.' r -i s Read '^-«••t U < t x , p. 108, 1. 42. 3 Read i w ^ k - t W for k j t w , p. 109, 1. 13. 4 See Dan. ii 34, seg. s B e a d i ^ j t - i , p. 109,1. 17, and delete the note, r -i 6 Read co4vs»o.«-=-,i for cniuocua*, p. 109,1. 25. £

1 P. 110.

P. 111.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

humbled or the shatterer of all . . . ? 1 And if it was because John announced the coming of that Messiah (lit. announced before that Messiah) that he became great, it is still the same thing ; for he caused us to ascribe the majesty of that King to the herald and the messenger who preceded Him, as is also the custom of kings and their messengers. 2 Or can it be that the majesty of him who was to come consisted in humility 1 For lo ! [the majesty] of humility was also upon His herald, together with the rest (of His qualities). But because John was the messenger of the kingdom he was also wholly forgotten by them (1). When he comes, that Just One and the greater of the [two] 3 Messiahs, does a herald or a messenger go before him 1 Or [will it be sudden ?],4 that terrible coming of His, and does no messenger and herald come before it ? But if another herald does come before it, . . . he is greater than John. For that majesty which was ascribed to John bears witness concerning this (Being) that He is greater than John. And is that messenger who comes before that subjugator of the nations thus subjected and humbled and persecuted as John was ? If thus is his coming (?), the contest is ours, for if the messenger is thus humbled and scorned, how does the lowly announce the coming of the Mighty One, and the scorned (announce) the coming of the Exalted One ? Who will believe that he is the Messenger of the Saviour in a case where he cannot stand up for himself, or does not show terrible signs and does not cast fear and trembling upon mankind ? But if the messenger who comes is great and mighty, how necessary is it that He too should be great! For (He is) like the Sun, and the herald also is a ray that precedes Him. If therefore it is so—as indeed it is—John, the humbled and lowly, announced the coming of Isu, who differs, by reason of his lowliness, from that high exalted King who is coming ; and he is alien, by reason of his abasement, to that mighty messenger who is sent before the face of that Mighty One. But does the Messiah come to save Israel or to torment it ? If he comes to 1 2

Read I » T « > H I \ , p. 109, 1. 44. I.e. An ambassador must be treated with the respect due to a king.

r

-i

» Read o«njiii».i for w * I cannot make out 1. 27.

ocaA *, p. 109, 1. 24.

AGAINST MARCION

II.

li

save it, his messenger therefore convicts of sins or preaches salvation. But if he is one who convicts, when they repent P. 112. then they are saved. And if they do not wish to repent, does he preach to them ease or salvation ? But if he preaches destruction to them, all those things which Israel expects are annulled. And if he preaches salvation to them, by his character of Saviour he offers them a foretaste of the great salvations which come after him, as Moses did in Egypt. Let us see therefore what foretaste of salvation John offered to them ; and, in the second place, lo, the Jews acknowledge all (manner of) prophets and righteous men, and this man, who is greater than all of them, they not only slew but do not even acknowledge ! When therefore the Just and Upright One comes, whom this persecuted and slain one announced beforehand, will He avenge his ill-treatment and murder and the refusal to acknowledge him upon all the tribes of the Jews, who unto the last continually refuse to acknowledge him, or will He not ? If He does not avenge (him), where is the Just One who delivered even the observer of the Law (and) avenged him on the Gentiles ? 1 This man, who is greater than all the Prophets, P. 1X3. He does not avenge ! And if He executes vengeance on all these Tribes, who disbelieve in John and continue to do so, then He who comes is the destroyer of the Jews and not their Saviour. For those who slew His messenger slew Him Hijhself, and those who deny His herald are not able to acknowledge Him. But if when all these sins are openly committed (lit. are in the midst) they are not punished, why was it necessary that John should come to baptize and absolve from transgressions, seeing that not one of the transgressions is punished ? But there is no one who is kinder than He who forgives all these transgressions ; and how is it that this justice shows neglect, (this justice) which in no case neglected to punish ? Has that grace which comes to Israel at the last compelled us to say that it is alien to that justice which wrote for Israel 2 ' blow for blow' ? But if sins are punished, that baptism which remits sins is necessary at the last; for lo, the baptism of John ceased 1 2

Probably an allusion to Dan. vi. Exod. xxi 25.

lii

S. E P H R A I M ' S

REFUTATIONS

(to exist) among the Jews thenceforward. Who therefore can bring it (back), and who can baptize, now that John is dead ! And if it (i.e. baptism) is not necessary at the last, why was it formerly necessary ? Is it withheld by Grace or by Justice % B u t (thou wilt say), ' Lo, these very things by means of which thou judgest me, (by asking) why they arc not found in connection with John, are the things by means of which thou too art judged as to why they are not found in connection with John. For lo, the prophet testifies and our Lord confirms that those things which are said concerning Elijah are fulfilled in him (i.e. in John).' But I say that the herald is like Him who is heralded, that as about Him terrible things are written and as if 1 in this world He is doing them, but it is at the last He is ready to do them. But the roots (i.e. causes) of retribution, since they come from this quarter, prophecy takes up, in order to pluck the fruits from their roots, according to that (passage), ' Lo, the kingdom of God among you ! ' 2 —And they did not (then) see those good things and the pleasures of the Kingdom, but because He is the root of the aforesaid pleasures He says ' Lo, the Kingdom ! ' Because those words which John proclaimed [give an earnest of what is to come] 3 he called things of Yonder things of Here, just as in the case of a murderer who is slain after twenty years, the hour in which he committed the murder has slain him, as (it befell) Adam. 4 And if thou sayest that they likewise teach that there is a proof (?) respecting these associates (?), then also the Messiah who is (mentioned) in the Law has two comings, one in which he deposited pledges, and another in which he redeems pledges. For from the actions of John I demonstrate (that he has) two comings, one to which the actions (?) of John bear witness that it was not a Lowly One who came to announce the advent of the Exalted One, and another (coming) promised by (lit. the promises of) Malachi in the passage " He cometh as a fiery furnace," that is to say, on account of the retribution which was hidden in the preaching of John, (the retribution) which ? 1 2 3 4

R e a d «CD for —»tn, p. 114, 1. 29. L u k e xvii 21 SC (not syr.vg). I cannot translate or amend p. 115, 11. 5 - 7 . See Gen. ii 17 ( " in the day when thou eatest t h e r e o f , " etc.).

liii

AGAINST MARCION II.

is revealed at the last, as he said also concerning his Lord, " Thousands shall fall at thy side," 1 and " Peace at the last," and as that (passage says), ' The LORD God shall give him the throne of David his father.' 3 Now the Baptism at the hands of John was so alien that not P. 116. even the angels and righteous men and prophets were aware of i t ; let that Strangeness, therefore, of which no one was aware, appear in the days of this Strangeness of Isu, of whom no one had been informed ; but it was right that the Strangeness of our Lord should be bound together with the Strangeness of John by the conduct of our Lord, as John also was with the Law : Old Testament and New Testament (meet) in the new Baptism of John. But nevertheless if our Lord was David's Son, as all the prophets bear witness, and if He was not David's Son, as David too testifies and our Lord also confirms, on your account then it was said that He is not David's Son, so that this very Strangeness to which ye have recourse might be found within the Scriptures, in order that your error might be hampered from running (abroad) throughout the world. 1

Psalm x c i 7.

* Psalm x x x v i i 37.

' L u k e i 32.

E N D OF DISCOURSE AGAINST MARCION.

AGAINST MARCION III. P. 117.

P. 11?.

P. 119, "

1 5

ANOTHER

DISCOURSE

AGAINST

MARCION.

IF the organs 1 of the body suffice for the gifts of the Good (God), 0 Marcion, that is to say, the eye for His light, and the ear for His voice, why then does the body not live at the last ? But if the body does not suffice for these good things at the last, no[thing] else in this world suffices for them. Therefore neither is the heart sufficient for knowledge of the Stranger, nor hearing for the study (lit. reading) of Him. Moreover, as to the fact that the souls do not sin in the Kingdom, is it because of their nature, which is good, t h a t they do not sin 1 And how then did the evil body change the good nature ? But if the Stranger changes them there, though they are evil, what sin did the body commit so as to be deprived of this desirable change ? But if the souls are good there, is it because they enter that region that they are good, or are they good from the point where they stripped off their bodies ? If this desirable state 2 be due to the place, let the body also enter into it, and likewise all men [in whom] are sins. . . . . . . [And as] Fire is not [separated from Heat, so Evil is not constituted apart from its power. But how and wherefore does that which is hot retain its natural heat, when that which is cold did not remain in its natural state ? If therefore it is an Existence and an Entity, they are [not] changed in nature. But if that creative power has made out of nothing something good, it [can] 3 be changed in character. For this ye have learnt, (namely) that they are created from nothing, because a thing which is Created from nothing can be changed into 1 F o r this translation of haddutne, generally rendered ' limbs,' see p. xxi, 1. 11, where E p h r a i m says " b y t h y haddame, t h a t is, by thy senses." 2 «ftt (sic), perhaps a scribe's mistake for i^^o • f> r, ' purity.'

» Read

r

t

for i*"J% * *, I. 24. liv

AGAINST MARCION

III.

lv

anything. And if it is not created, it is always ' bound ' by its essential nature ; for, (in the case of) a thing which can be changed into anything, its change bears witness concerning it that it [does not come] from an unchangeable Existence. But if it is possible for the souls to strip off their bodies, they (i.e. the souls) are purged of all evils. W h y did he who came come ? Was it to bring life to the body which P. 120. [was] without life, or to come and change the soul which was (already) alive ? . . . And henceforth they are dragged again 1. 17. from struggle to struggle, and therefore also weapons and crucifixion 1 are necessary to them 2 (?) in the Kingdom. And if not, for what reason are the souls which are very evil here not evil there ? For if this is due to the place then also their Creator is able to bring them up to a place which is raised above and higher than HULE. And if they say that they (i.e. the souls) cannot conquer even there, (I reply that) if it be the fact that the Stranger constrains us to conquer in the region of Evil and (in) the body of Sin, how much more will the Maker give us the victory in a place which is raised above E v i l and also above the body of Sin ! But if even thus it (the soul) cannot conquer, it is then unjust in the Stranger to demand of us victory in a p. 121 region where there is no possibility of our being victorious. B u t if, when the souls have stripped off the body of Sin and are lifted up again to a region which is raised above Sin, the souls are still polluted even there, how do they say that in that region of the Good they are purged ? A n d why then do they blame the body by asserting that ' it causes the soul to sin,' when in reality, in all this interval of time, the nature of the soul is found to be evil ? A n d how at the present time do the souls become good in the Kingdom ? For if the Stranger creates a new mode of existence (lit. another creation) for them there, if He is able to change the mode of existence of the soul, it may be that He can change the soul's nature. B u t if the nature is changed by creative power, then the evil was not in the essence (of the soul) but in the creative power, and hence the Maker can change 1

The MS. clearly has rf^c-a-taj, but perhaps it is a scribe's error for *>Yni, 'clubs,' or for i f ^ a ^ k a ^ , 'force' (cf. Overbeck, p. 369, 11. 13,

14). 2 ' for i t ' {sic) MS.

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

lvi

P. 122.

P. 123.

the nature according to His will, as also other created beings testify who serve according to the will of their Creator. And therefore when Isu came to us, He ought to have made use of creative power and not of preaching, for creative power changes natures, whereas preaching does n o t ; and this is proved to thee by craftsmen, that is to say, even by potters and smiths. But if when our Lord came He did not wish to change the natures, was it as a kind and wise Being that He did not wish to change the natures ? Was it as a kind and wise Being that He did not wish to destroy that which was well adjusted 1 Or was it as an evil and envious Being that He did not wish to adjust that which was badly constructed ? But if it was because our Lord saw it to be rightly fashioned that He did not even adjust any part of it, how do they say that the Maker repented of the work to which 1 our Lord Himself testified that it was rightly fashioned % Or how again, when our Lord praises it, do they find fault with it ? But know that by the fact that He praised the latter one it is seen that He agrees with the former one, and by the fact that they find fault they themselves are seen to disagree with the latter (and) also with the former. But in which (respect) is our Lord seen to have praised the work of the Maker ? Is it not by the fact that [they find fault, but He was] one who repaired the normal arrangement 1 2 For it was not abnormal eyes, alien to nature, t h a t our Lord gave to the blind man, but eyes in accordance with nature. [If He were] a Stranger, it would be reasonable that just as He gave us laws which were alien to the Maker in like manner He should give us also physical organs which are alien to the Maker. But if He changed laws but did not wish to change physical organs, it is seen that the organs are (works) of God, and our Lord, who changed the laws from generation to generation, did not change the organs in any generation. But they say, ' The sole reason of His not changing (them) was t h a t they might not think concerning Him that He was a Stranger, and (so) persecute Him.' The laws therefore which He changed, did He change them in order that they might n n 1 1

Read ««n* for p. 122, 1. 29. P. 122,11. 44, 45, are obscure, but the sense seems to be aa above.

lvii

AGAINST MARCION III.

think concerning Him that He was not a Stranger ? In which of the two circumstances, then, was strangeness most powerfully to be seen, in the change of laws or in the change of organs ? For even a feeble human being can change laws, but (only) a powerful Maker can change organs. Would that He had changed [the] mind and had not changed the law, so that [a man] might see its excellence and not its difficulty ! For when new creations came to pass [in] men more strangeness P. 124. [would arise]. . . . *

•

!(:

Hi

*

*

*

For just as by the fact that He [changed] the laws He shewed 1. 22. strangeness, [so] by the fact that He did not change the bodily organs He annulled the strangeness. But if our Lord [made] the two of them one—for He gave to the hearers additional interpretations which were not in the Law, but He did not give to those who were to be healed additional organs which were not in nature, (it was) in order that when contumacious persons treat Him as a stranger because He abrogated laws they may be convicted of error by the fact that He maintained the normal arrangement of nature. Again, He gave new laws and maintained primeval nature, in order that when He is treated as a stranger on account of the new laws primeval nature may come forward and prove concerning Him that He is not the son of a P. 125 stranger. But if He is a stranger, as they assert concerning Him, then this thing which He did was exceeding foolish ; for He abrogated the former commandments and maintained the former nature. For, as I have already said, He ought, as a strange law-giver, to have created 1 on that account a strange nature also, so that, just as His law was seen to be something more than the former law, in like manner His creation also might be seen to be something more than the creation of the Creator. But if " in His law our Lord was a stranger, but in His action one of the household," 2 this is (a description of) the foolish Marcion, who is partly inside and partly outside. And they ought therefore, if they are lovers of true things, to remain in doubt; for if they called Him a stranger on account of the new sayings which He uttered, then 1 2

r f v a - J l (p. 125, 1. 12) is a scribe's blunder for rei-aj. This is evidently quoted as a Marcionite saying.

lviii

P. 126.

P. 127.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

because He did not create a strange creation the bold preaching ought to have been buried in silence (lit. confined within silence). For the Marcionites preach two things concerning our Lord which are at variance with each other, for " He abrogated the former laws and healed injured organs." But here this man, whoever he may be, is seen to be alien to the creation in virtue of his teaching and akin to it in virtue of his activity. 1 But let us see which is the true ' strangeness,' that which consists in sayings or that which consists in deeds. If that which consist in sayings is true, their contentious doctrine is true, but if that which consists in deeds is true our faith has received the crown. Let us know therefore who was a stranger to the world— He who instituted in it new laws, or He who created in it strange creatures ? For He who institutes in the world new laws is not a stranger to the world, since in that world new laws have been issued from generation to generation ; but He who created strange creatures was perhaps considered to be a stranger, since no strange creature has (ever) appeared in the world. If therefore the Marcionites proclaim that our Lord gave eyes to the blind, it is a good thing that from their own mouth their condemnation is proclaimed. For instead of bestowing strange eyes, that it might be known that He was a stranger, He restored to health these former ones, that it might be known that He is that (Being) who existed in former times. But this thing, which they proclaim to others, is to themselves a thing unheard o f ; for their hearing is at variance with their tongue, just as their intention is at variance with their Maker. For the Creator and Lawgiver abolished the former laws and gave other laws, but He did not abolish the former sun and create another sun ; again He replaced the Old Covenant (Siatf^) by a New Covenant, but He did not abolish the old heaven and create another heaven. With regard therefore to Him who creates natures and gives laws, just as it was easy for Him to change laws so it would have been easy for Him to change natures. But wherefore He who changed laws did not wish to change the creation thou mayest hear from us abundantly, if there is not with thee that contentiousness which is wont to resist abundant (proofs), which, though it is 1

The same word as is translated ' creative power,' pp. Iv (last line), lxiii f.

lix

AGAINST MARCION I I I

supposed that with its labour it really acquires them, does not [know] that it is driving away from beside itself an acquisition without labour. For the contention of the hearer is [an impediment to] the gifts that come forth from the mouth of the speaker. Hear therefore why it was that He who abolished the former laws did not abolish the former creatures ! He created the creatures in accordance with His own perfection, but He gave P. 128. many laws in account of our imperfection. For if we had abided perfectly by the law which He has written on the heart—(the law) which was followed by Abel and by Enoch who did not taste death—laws varying from nation to nation would not even be required. Thus where the creatures (are concerned, permanence of species is due to) the perfection of the Creator, who in all respects is perfect; and where laws (are concerned, the diversity is due to) the imperfection of man, who in all respects is audacious. God, therefore, did not abolish the former creatures, lest we should think that He had actually received advice or had been taught to create creatures superior to the former creatures ; but He gave many laws, that in many (ways) He might restrain the audacity which did not abide by the former law which was written on the heart. But man, on account of his imperfection, when he does something, is taught by his experience of former things to do something more than (those) former things ; whereas the Creator, since He is perfect in His Wisdom, even before He creates, each separate thing that He wishes to do is completely visible to Him. But perhaps thou wilt say, ' Lo, creatures were transformed in E g y p t ! ' They were transformed in Egypt on P. 129. account of the tyranny of Pharaoh, but they did not undergo transformation on account of 1 . . . *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

P . 130.

[For the Will that bound, the course of Nature (is able to alter 1. 29. it) and we learn that He who relaxed the Laws was Himself the 2

1 Here follows a very illegible page, containing an allusion to Hezekiah and the Sundial (Isaiah xxxviii 8), p. 129, 11. 15-22. 2 Not quite the same phrase as James iii 6.

lx L 38.

P. 131.

P. 132.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

establisher of the Laws.] For a composite nature cannot remain in its composite state without the . . . power of its Creator, and a law cannot be annulled without the good will of its Maker ; for where there is power to make there is also wisdom which directs the things that are made, and where there is Justice which punishes sins there is also Grace. . . . For consider that One who is good cannot shew mercy save to those who have transgressed His just law, for if He has compassion with regard to the law of another He has deflected from goodness 'and also ignored justice, so as to incline altogether towards iniquity. For that Stranger who becomes the pardoner of debtors necessarily wrongs the creditor. " But," it is said, " He paid our debt by His death." But know that we owed a real debt: if therefore He died in reality, He also paid our debt in reality; but if it was in appearance that He died, that debt of ours also was paid in by a fraud. Yet know that the Good One also was pleased by this deception, that He should come and pay our debt by a fraud. Yet He who is just and mighty is not mocked, for in virtue of His justice He does not act wrongly and in virtue of His might He is not mocked. For the Just One would not act wrongly so as to come, when our debt has been paid, and demand the paid debt afresh, nor again would the Mighty One be mocked, so to allow His real possessions to be snatched from Him, without receiving anything real in exchange for His real possessions. " But," it is said, " though the Just One is mighty, the Good One is nevertheless mightier than He." If therefore He overcame Him by might, how 1 do they bring in the term ' purchase ' ? [CallJ Him therefore a doer of violence and not a purchaser. But if He made a real purchase, as one who acted humbly, how was ' might' involved in the affair ? For either let them choose for themselves that He purchased as a humble and true (Being), or else let them choose for themselves that He did violence, as one who is mighty and tyrannical. But since the followers of Marcion were ashamed to be sponsors for the term ' violent robbery ' (as applicable) in the case of the Stranger, they have used with reference to Him the term ' purchase in humble fashion,' and because they are refuted in 1

Lit. " How do they name purchase in the midst t "

AGAINST

MARCION

III.

lxi

the matter of the purchase, they have used with reference to Him the term ' might,' so that when it is asserted against them that He did violence they say that H e merely purchased, and when again it is asserted against them that the Maker did not wish to sell his possessions they say that H e (i.e. the Stranger) is mightier than H e {i.e. the Maker). therefore annuls the other.

E a c h of the (two) assertions p. 133.

For if it is a ' purchase in humble

fashion,' consent (lit. will) and not compulsion is involved, but if the purchaser overcomes by force he does not really purchase but seizes by violence.

If therefore they introduce (the mention

of) His might, which is a plausible term, (the notion of) violent robbery comes in with it . . . *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

134.

let them learn that it is a doctrine (artificially) constructed 1< 26s and . . which has no foundation (lit. root) ; for the poets likewise construct fables out of bare names, their fables being

©

'

devoid of foundation, for the poets make use of names . . . * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

P. 135.

On that account He gave that which is His own in order that H e l. 21. m a y take that which is not His own.

A n d again, if there is

no affinity between the purchaser and

the seller, in

their

mutual action, they cannot give to one another or receive from one another.

For that which they give is profitable to both,

and again that which they receive is pleasing and profitable to both.

B u t if they have heard only the word ' purchase ' and

hence have introduced the mention of ' strangeness' (lit. and from it have named strangeness), they ought t o have made mention of ' strangeness ' from the days of Isaiah onwards, who said

1

" For nought have y e been sold," and thenceforward it would have been a purchase in reality, that the People was sold, that it should serve its masters.

B u t if there is no strangeness in Fs 136;

a real purchase, how can there be strangeness in a fraudulent 1

Isaiah lii 3.

lxii

P. 137.

P 138.

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

purchase 1 But if they say that the Just One did not perceive the Good One, (I reply) ' And how was it that that Good and Humble One came to purchase something which its owner did not wish to sell—something which it did not even enter His mind to sell 1 ' But if they say something that pleases them they must hear something that does not please them. For it pleases them to say this, that this Just One did not perceive that Good One ; but it does not please them that some man should say concerning that Good One that He robs with violence. But this (statement) which does not please them is derived from that (statement) which pleases them. For if the Just One did not perceive the Good One, He therefore did not even contemplate the selling of His possessions to Him, for lo, He did not even perceive that He (i.e. the Good One) existed ! But if He did not perceive Him and moreover did not contemplate the selling (of anything) to Him, it necessarily follows that if He sold (anything) He was compelled by force to sell that which He did not wish to sell. But perhaps they may say that even if the Good One compelled the Just One by force it was only for our salvation that He compelled Him by force. Know that in this respect He was on a level with all robbers. For he also who goes forth to take by robbery a possession that is not his own puts pressure on the possessor by reason of his love for the possession ; and, in a word, all those who take away things from their owners, it is because of the love which they have for the things themselves that they grieve the heart of their possessors. But they say, " Even if the Good One put pressure on the Just One by snatching us from Him, He only took us to Himself in a loving manner." (But this is no argument), for what thief is there who will steal a precious pearl from his neighbour and will not keep it lovingly and carefully after taking it away ? And on this supposition all evil-doers are found to be acting, not in an evil manner, but mercifully and kindly. For what robber is there who goes forth to take away or to filch something hateful and [undesirable] in his own eyes ? Why therefore have the Marcionites adorned with fair titles One who in His conduct is not different from evil-doers ? But far be it from us to speak thus concerning our Lord ! But it is only on account of them (i.e.

AGAINST MARCION

III.

lxiii

the Marcionites) that we are obliged to say these things for their refutation, so that if they are convinced these things will not ba reckoned to us to our detriment, on account of the advantage (which accrues) to them, and if they are not convinced they will pay the penalty for it, t h a t 1 their confusion (of mind) led us to use words that are not seemly. But even if we utter the blasphemy (only) with our lips, and not in our heart, nevertheless who is there who wishes to taste, even with his lips (only), the deadly poison ? For as to that which is not seemly, would that it had never in our life (?) entered our mind ! But nevertheless let us return to our former subject, which we abandoned for a while on account of the pretext of ' purchase.' If therefore before the coming of I s u this [convention] 2 existed, 0 Marcion, that is to say, that though laws were changed from generation to generation the order of nature 3 was fixed and continued {lit. came) through all generations, we see that if our P. 139. Lord came and diverged from this [convention] 2 of the Maker it is evident that He was ' strange ' to the Maker. But if He proceeded in accordance with this order it is manifest that this beseemed the Son that His steps should hasten in the footprints of Him that begat Him, for He also . . . B u t the Son 1. 17. also preserved by His healing the normal arrangement of the former body, that He might testify, as their Father did, that the creatures were created aright from the Beginning. Our Lord therefore is not found to resemble a destroyer, nor a stranger, for He did not injure healthy organs . . . nor, again, when He healed did He bestow abnormal organs, nor, again, did He [make it 1. 33. appear] to them by His creative power that He was alien to the Maker, but He preserved organs that were healthy, and cured organs that were hurt. But (?) He who preserves healthy organs, in order that they may not be hurt, plainly testifies concerning Him who created them that He is perfect and (that) it is not right that His arrangement should be hurt. B u t He who P. 140. sets in order organs that have been hurt testifies concerning Read 4»o ' . But if thou dost turn to Discussion I will leave Faith alone ! What do I [acknowledge] ? There exists an Entity, called God. But thou sayest ' Lo, the world exists ; if thou wilt, call it an Entity, and

xcvi

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

if thou wilt, [set down] that from Entities it is made. Is it not necessary for thee to acknowledge that that essence exists ?' Then that necessity which has bound me to acknowledge this paradox that ' it cannot really be investigated, but it is believed without investigation '—that necessity has bound me to believe that ' from Nothing everything comes to be,' another paradox which without investigation is to be believed ! But instead of all these things which thou hast said above, this which is unexceptionable I say ' How dost thou compel me to believe that there exists a God invisible and intangible 1 ' Wilt thou compel . . . P. 203.

1. 33.

P. 204.

and how Four Entities that are visible . . . Now the Fire devoured the Water and the Dust and the Stones and the Ox,1 and they became nothing. But a thing that exists in essence cannot become nothing. Now (this came to pass) that God might make known that from nothing created things [will become] nothing. If therefore thou dost not believe this, learn by experiment as a fool, because . . . Look at this, that God in the Beginning made the Earth from nothing, [and] He turned and generated everything from the Earth. For just as the Earth is from nothing and from it is everything, so in Fire everything (becomes) nothing, and at the last it also turns to nothing. But if thou say that this work is subtly divided in the midst of the Air, pound and break up anything thou wilt and examine (?) it in the Sun that comes in through the window, and see that it appears to thee that thou dost see [it] ; therefore also the flame of a fire [that] has gone out or Water that is dried up is (more) subtle.2 Let us say further against Mani that a thing which by sins was cast down from its place as a thing—by righteousness and by keeping the commandments could it be restored ? If the Z i w a n e also through sins were mixed with the Darkness, it is necessary that by means of fasting and prayer they should be ' refined.' But if it was in order that the Darkness might be Evidently a reference to 1 Kings xviii 38. The meaning appears to be that mechanically pounded grit is after all visible, however email it be pounded, but dried-up water is quite invisible. 1

2

AGAINST MANI

xcvii

caught through them that they were mixed (with it); now that it has been caught, by all means it is required to know how the Sons of the Light may return to their place. And if so they do not go up, never can they return to their place. For if cleansing is required, as they say, ' fountains of refining ' as others say, how [blind] is Bardaisan . . . to cleanse and to refine that which is mixed in the Sea and in the dry Land and in the Heaven and in the Earth and in all that is in them, and in the Seven Limbos 1 and in the Ten Firmaments, as they both have said ? Therefore these their disciples make their words void. For if the refinings are many and great but their disciples are few P. 205. and dispersed, how by Five Initiates can that be separated and refined which thousands and myriads do not suffice for ? For if they had been wise they ought to have contrived to find a Teaching suitable for a few, so that it might be believed that a few could suffice for it. For if any one set out that he with a few workmen would suffice to cut through a great mountain or to dam a mighty river, then by those feeble ones who are with him is it not clear that he is making a mock of himself 1 For with many and strong men that on which he set out is to be done, or not at all: how much more (is it absurd) that he set out with Five to do that for which Five Hundred was too few ? They also actually proclaim a refining and cleansing of all Rivers and Sources and Fountains, when between them all they cannot refine the water of a single Spring ! And so look at everything, at Fruits and Produce and Crops and Vegetables and Fishes and Birds,—how many can eat of all these that are p. 206. in all quarters, both by sea and land % For if it were so as they say, Kings and their countries and Lords and their retinues and Captains of armies and their forces ought to be placed over these matters, so that by many coming from all quarters the Light which is in all quarters might be refined. But the Romans are omitted, who had not heard the news of the Refinings, and the Greeks and the Hebrews and the Barbarians and the Arabs, for they refine more than all, seeing that not even . . , 2 escapes 1

Syr. : see Agst. Bardaisan L X X X I . (p. lxxvii). MS. r e h u ^ n i . Does this mean ' t h a t which belongs to dead bodies,' or has the scribe omitted some word like ? 2

H

xcviii them !

S.

EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

All these therefore are unemployed in Refining, and

' a pair of Initiates refine,' they say, ' and cleanse the mixture ' which is too great for a l l ! F o r if by the knowledge and the F a i t h of the school of B a r daisan and Mani the creation is being cleansed and refined, and otherwise there is no way, when do these feeble ones look forward b y themselves to finish the creation ?

B u t if they should say

t h a t all peoples are refining and cleansing the Light from the Darkness, and the Good P a r t s from the Evil, know further t h a t for their shame they are compelled to say so, though they on P. 207.

a

i i sides cannot avoid shame.

F o r how is Light refined in the

mouth of the unbelievers, and how are the P a r t s of the Soul 1. 10.

cleansed . . . how are they . . .

to proclaim the truth about

Refining, for lo, those also who do not believe cleanse and refine ? * * * * * * * 1- 32.

t h a t which is in their teaching, for lo, from Adam even unto Bardaisan and to Mani.

P. 208.

*

j. 17.

*

Vainly then they were going and . . . *

*

*

*

*

And if they should say for their shame t h a t there were some of old time Teachers of the Truth,—for they say about Hermes in E g y p t , and about P l a t o among the Greeks, and about Jesus who appeared in Judeea, t h a t ' they are Heralds of t h a t Good One to the world,'—(what does it prove) ?

F o r if so be t h a t they

did proclaim these (doctrines) of the Manicheans as they say, if Hermes knew the Primal Man, the F a t h e r of the ZIWANE, and if he knew the Pillar of Glory and the . .

of Splendour and the

Atlas and the rest of the others t h a t Mani proclaimed and even worships and prays to ; and if Plato knew the Virgin of Light . . , z and t h e Mother of the [Living], p. 209.

or the war or . . . ,—but

he did know . . . and Hera and Athena and Aphrodite the adulterous Goddess !—and if J e s u s proclaimed to them

the

Refining in Judaea, and if H e taught the worship of the Luminaries t h a t Mani worships, he who they say is the Paraclete, t h a t comes 1 The MS. has K o j i . . . . A a, quite legible in a good light. Evidently the (pfyyoKaTo^oa (Splenditenens) was named. We should have expected in the gap (Cumont, Mecherchea, i, p. 22), but the traces are more

like

i—i

2

Two words illegible.

AGAINST

MAXI

xcix

after three hundred years : and « hen wc have found that the teachings of these or their followers agree the one to the other, or those of one of them to those of Mani, there is justification ! But if they do not agree, refutation is at hand. But why is it that Astrology, even though it is a lie, agrees with itself in its teaching, and Magianism with its tradition, and Geometry with its calculation, and Medicine with its book ? And the disciples of Plato learned his teaching and teach it to this day, and the disciples of Jesus both learned and taught what they heard from Him ; and so do the disciples of Marcion and Bardaisan and Mani. If they also with Hermes and Plato and Jesus and others from the Beginning were proclaiming a Refining in succession, as Mani says, how is it their disciples are not proclaiming their teaching in Egypt and in Greece and in Judaea like that which Mani teaches to-day ? For how is what Jesus teaches like what P. 210. Mani teaches ? So that by this teaching of our Lord, which is open and manifest let that one be convicted who has much wronged God and the Dead. For Hermes taught that there was a Bowl, 1 filled with whatever it was filled with, and that there are Souls excited by desire, and they come down beside it, and, when they have come close to itj in it and by reason of it they forget their own place. Now Mani teaches that the Darkness made an assault on the Light and desired it, while Hermes teaches that the Souls desired the Bowl; and this is a little (more) probable, even though both are lying, but it is (more) probable, because it, the Soul, desires to remain in the Body and delay in its Habitation and dwell in its House and be fondled in its Bosom. But Mani compels a man to hear him seriously though he is talking nonsense, for ' the Darkness (he says) loved the Light its opposite '—and how does Water love Fire that absorbs it, or Fire Water that quenches it ? And how did Fire love Light 1 How, pray, will it be benefited by it ? For ' Fire loved Fire, and Wind Wind, and Water Water.' Or, perhaps, are these Natures of Darkness P. 211. male and those from the Good One female ? And if not, what is the sense of this, that they loved one another ? 1 For the doctrine of the Bowl or Vortex (Kpar^p), see Mead's Thricegreatest Hermes, vol. i, pp. 414 f., 454 : also Macrobius, Somn. Scip. i 12.

c

P. 212.

P. 213.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

These things therefore Hermes did not teach, nor did Jesus, because Jesus taught the opposite of all of them. For He quickened bodies and raised the dead, whereas neither Hermes nor Plato believe in the resurrection of the body. But indeed how did Water love Water and both went astray ? For, lo, if an evil man sink in water the evil Water drowns him and does not remember that it is of his race, and if a good man be drowned in water the good water does not recognise that it is of his family. And so the Wind loved the Wind and they became one thing—and against the just and the unjust they come up in the contrary direction and batter their faces ! And so the Light makes no distinction between the unclean and the clean. And how do they worship that which has no discrimination ? And if because of His grace, 1 —neither the Water His fellowkinsman is good which drowns the righteous, nor the Fire which burns the humble ! And (see) that even the Sun burns the fruits and torments the reapers, and sees those that are oppressed with its heat and does not produce the fruits as one that is good ; and in the country of the far East 2 they say three things are at ease in the shade, Men and Cattle and Wild Beasts, for the Sun not to burn them with the fierceness of its rays. And how, pray, did the Sons of the Darkness endure its burning, seeing that bodies are of the same family as they are and they cannot endure its heat 1 For if this heat is of the same nature as these bodies, how is that which is of one Entity tormenting and being tormented from itself ? And if it is from that other nature, then how could this which is injured endure that which injures 1 But it is wonderful and difficult and incredible that it even ' eagerly desired it and was pleased with it.' And if Fire was mixed with Fire, and Water with Water and Wind with Wind, it necessarily follows that Light also (was mixed) with Light! Now that these Natures are akin one to the other all reasonable beings know, apart from madmen—but perhaps even madmen apart from the Manicheans. For we know the causes whereby Water is transformed, and witness is 1 Sic MS. Perhaps rfA\o i \ , 'goodness ' is intended, not ' grace,' but even so the sentence is an anaeoluthon. 2 Lit. ' of the Sun-rising.'

-•

AGAINST MANI

ci

borne uniformly to this that, lo, by trees it is transformed into Wine and into Oil and into the many tastes thereof. What therefore shall we say • That Wine is not akin to Water, or that Oil also is not of its family ? And if Wine and Oil that, lo, are very distinct from Water, even though they seem to be strangers are not strangers, how much more is Water akin to Water, though it be bitter ? For as it is diverse in plants so it is diverse in countries, though the true Word of Providence places it and the countries and the plants under the one Will that creates all things. Furthermore we will confute them from another quarter, in that if Fire has been mixed with Fire, when pray are they being refined and separated one. from the other i For if they were being refined they would also be recognised, in that Fire had become dimmer than it was because of the refining away of that other that was separated from it. For there are old men that have lived more than a hundred years and they have not perceived that this Fire after a hundred years is colder or dimmer than P. 214. that was, nor was that of a hundred years ago hotter or stronger or brighter or clearer than this ; nor has Water become weaker than Water was, nor Wind than Wind ; and (so) these Natures stir up an unfalsifiable refutation against those who wished to tell all these lies about plain things. For these Natures that have not become weaker and are not becoming weaker prove about Bardaisan and Mani that there is no sense in their teaching. But if something from behind moved the Element of Wind and impelled it, as Bardaisan says, it would impel it towards its diameter, 1 that is, against the Element of Light it would cast it. For opposite the Western one it is set in the East. For if from the North-West the Wind was hurled by whatever it was that hurled it and cast it on the Fire it did not make it go down below upon the Darkness hi the middle ; for it turned the Fire to the South, and took it away, and it went forth into empty Space. And because they are Atoms, as Bardaisan says, inas- p. 215. much as it is in intention that the distinction between each of them is apprehended,2 it is clear that the Entities were not also 1

I.e. its diametrically opposite Element» - x understand the word here translated ' intention' to refer to the

cii

P. 210. 3'

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

hurled one into the other like bodies into bodies. And it is to be supposed about them in their own selves that Wind cannot set in motion the Light of the Sun. But if the Elements were impelled from above downwards, what prevented it from impelling the Fire to go down alongside of the Darkness, if the pretext of Darkness was required for the Maker to make ? And if the Wind blew, lo, it would have separated the Atoms, because they had not yet been mixed by the force of creative power. And even that Wind would not have been able to blow, because it had not yet even acquired the faculty of blowing by the regulation (of the Maker) ; for if by reason of creative power the Fire acquired brightness and the Light extension and Water flow, it is clear that before their regulation they did not have these (properties), nor did the Darkness, because it also still consisted of scattered Atoms. For if when [the regulation] was not . . . the Water . . . . . . and the Wind would not have sufficed of itself to blow and the Fire to [glow] and the Darkness to smoke, and the Light and the Fire and the Wind . . . *

sjc

s[:

*

*

*

*

1. 12.

and it would have been made more hateful than it was (before) by the regulation of this Maker, who they say really did make things more beautiful than they had been in their original essence. Or should we say the true (constitution) of this Fire is not of that which Bardaisan says ?—for truly indeed it is not of it. It is not as if what I am saying does exist, but on the contrary I assert that it does not exist, not as one that likes it to be so, but as one that is convinced, not without consideration, but by prudent investigation. For if from the very same thing come Light, Wind, Darkness, experiment, vision—let us see therefore if this is established by its own power, without conjunction with anything

P. 217.

else, and let us see if it (the Fire) kindles Wind like chips of wood, or has power with Darkness as with reeds ! And if this defect that it has to-day it did not have of old and that immemorial non-defect it does not have to-day, it is necessary that either the Elements themselves, To use S. Paul's terminology, the p6rni/ia of Fire, viz. ' t o kindle,' is essentially distinct from that of Water, viz. ' t o make wet.'

AGAINST

MANI

ciii

Maker really disturbed things ignorantly—which God forbid !—or t h a t with a mouth t h a t is n o t ashamed to repeat the t r u t h t h e t r u e conclusion m a y be said without shame, w hich is t h a t t h a t man spoke falsely who constructed Entities t h a t do n o t exist. So t h a t f r o m these Entities, a b o u t which Bardaisan spoke, t h e r e is no way for created things like those (around us) to come into being, for t h e y do not allow their natures, being ' bound ' in essence, to come t o regulation as the artificer asks. F o r creatures which are f r o m nothing, as a n d also as m u c h as it pleases t h e Maker, so H e creates a n d fixes t h e m : H e changes, transfers, a n d dissolves, even illuminates. B u t if t h e y are Atoms of essence, as t h e y say, t h a t c a n n o t be dissolved b u t can be concentrated, let t h e m prove t o one who P. 218. wishes to ask without contention how N a t u r e s t h a t are n o t constructed can be constructed, unless the fixing of their essence has been dissolved, t h a t is, their A t o m s ? B u t if t h e y (the Atoms) h a d been actually dispersed, t h e y are collected by wisdom a n d contracted b y diligence, a n d therefore let us say to him w h a t Bardaisan said to a n o t h e r . 1 A n d if t h e t e x t u r e of t h e essence of these A t o m s was really loosely woven a n d porous, t h a t is, t h e dispersal of their n a t u r e , t h e y can be concentrated by wisdom a n d condensed b y artifice. A n d if this is all t h e ' creative power ' it is very weak, in t h a t its operation only went as far as p u t t i n g things together. B u t if created things also were created o u t of these atoms, I w a n t to learn how, when a t o m s cleave t o atoms, a Soul comes into being, a n d when other things cleave to others a Body comes into being ? W h a t is t h e glue a n d paste t h a t holds t h e m f r o m being dissolved 1 If t h i s b a n d a g e also is m a d e of atoms, y e t a n o t h e r b a n d a g e is required also for the bandage itself to bind it, [seeing that] w h a t is m a d e of sand cannot bind a t o m s of sand t o be one body, because it is n o t established even 219. for itself to bind its own self a n d substance. F o r brass t h a t is smelted f r o m sand, as long as thou a d d e s t its a t o m s one t o t h e other it increases a n d becomes a great heap of sand (only), t h a t is, one does n o t cleave to the other 1

I t is a p i t y t h a t we do not know w h a t B a r d a i s a n said ! T h e meaning seems to be t h a t substances t h a t can be divided a n d s e p a r a t e d c a n be reconcentrated a n d regrouped.

civ

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

unless they go into the furnace and are dissolved one by one by Fire from the bond of their nature ; and when the fixing of them one to the other is dissolved, then there comes to all of them one mixing [in] the melting-pot, and one power that moulds, like that of stones, which, if they are not dissolved and turned to lime, cannot be moulded and become one lump of brass. If therefore also these Atoms of Entities can each one of them be smelted, and their essence be destroyed though it be not regulated, and their nature be dissolved though it be not a composition, they have confessed though unwillingly that they were not even Entities but made things, and are not even Natures ' bound ' in essence but Natures regulated by creative power, are not Creatures that have come into being from something but from nothing. P. 220.

And if we adapt ourselves to them, whereas truth does not adapt itself to falsehood at all, if creatures were or are derived from Atoms, how was or is Knowledge and Intention derived from Atoms ? Now, there are some of their wise men, the hidden ones who perversely say something subtly, that ' there are other Atoms, of Reason and of Power and of Intention,' that is, three other Entities, that 'they have been sent from the L O R D of All upon the Primal Darkness and upon [this] regulation' and ' some of these Atoms were mingled and are mingled with those others' ; as Bardaisan says, that ' the Power of the Primal Utterance which remained in created things, it makes everything.' *

1. 35.

P. 221.

*

*

*

*

*

*

of ourselves, when we have no knowledge of ourselves. And therefore human nature is freed from all guiltinesses, and the blame has been attached to One Whom blame does not touch. But if this blasphemy cannot be believed, there is found as it were a condition belonging to it that knowledge is not . . . from God, not even as heat from Fire. For if it were so, it would be necessary that as the heat of Fire is like itself and is n o t , divided against itself, so also our knowledge would not be divided against God, if it were of G o d ; and therefore that neither from God nor from the Entities is really his true self, seeing that from nothing the whole man was

AGAINST MANI

cv

created. And this one thing bears witness about everything, that it also was created from nothing. But that thou mayest know that as far as these things assist Bardaisan, so far he draws them after his will, and where they fail him and are obscure, he too sails off in a vague way. For he declared that the names of the Months were not given without reason, but as allegories, and he began from First Teshri, for (he says) ' About the name o f 1 first beginning this Month proclaims with its name,' and not to be lengthy, let us say rapidly t h a t he went on and interpreted the names of the Months as far P- 222. as Nisan. And when he arrived at the name of Nisan and saw that its name did not suit his interpretation, nor those of the five other Months after it, he interpreted as far as that point and stayed, and explained as far as Adar and stopped. But if from God allegories had been placed in the names of the Months, in all the Months of the year he would have designed allegories and types in their names. For lo, Nisan, that is greater than all,—and its name does not agree with its activity, that is, its name (does not agree) with the Redemption that took place in it. Because therefore there chanced to be names for the Months which chanced by accident he gathered from them an explanation and persevered and made from them interpretations, and brought things from the dialect of Beth Garmai and from the dialect of Edessa ; and compassed sea and land to make one proselyte ! And see the fruit at variance with its root, in that his son is at variance with his explanation ! For Bardaisan said and declared, t h a t as if by Prophecy the First Month was called TESHRI, and the one after it MARHESHWAN, ' in which all things creep,' and P. 223. he did not say ' Teshri and Teshri.' 2 But his son, in order t h a t he also might establish another allegory which he had himself put together, and also that pure lips might speak it and chaste ears hear it, did not say ' Teshri and Marheshwan ' but ' Teshri and Teshri.' For he says thus in his Hymn : ' O TESHRI, Mother of the year, Produce for us another TESHRI,' and this he 1

The MS. has ' the name of the name at'—probably by a mere accident of transcription. 1 Teshri is October and Marheshwan November. These are the old Aramaic names : the Edessenes generally called October ' Teshri I, and November ' Teshri II.'

cvi

P. 224.

P. 225.

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

says about the Mother of Life, asking her to produce and leave behind a daughter after her own likeness. So again Bardaisan said thus about the Entities and their colours ; for he said ' the Light is white, the Fire is red, the Wind is blue, the Water is green,' though these (notions) are stolen by him from the Greeks. As therefore he declared that each of the Entities has a colour of its own, so each of them has its own smell, and its own taste, and its own texture, 1 and its own voice. For five aspects each must be found for each of the Entities, corresponding to the five senses which we have ; as he said ' Everything that exists has its own Power and its own Colour and its own Aspect, and the rest of whatever belongs to it Let him declare to us therefore what is the texture of Light and what is the taste of Wind, and what is the smell of Fire, that thou mayest know that here also with the Natures he goes into them as far as he does go, as in the names of the Months, and he shewed from them as far as he did, so as to shew his Philosophy And when other sides sank away from him and were hidden he began sailing off, and when . . . and he did not establish himself upon them he paid no attention to them and passed over and began with something else, and beguiled his hearers to suppose that those other things also that had not been spoken of he knew all about, like those kindred matters which had been spoken of. So again he put the Darkness because of its weight the lowest of all of them (i.e. of the Entities). And if the Darkness be the heaviest, know that the Water being lighter is above it in its boundary ; and because Fire also is lighter than Water, it must be that it is above the Water ; and again because Wind also is lighter than Fire it is clear that it too is above the Fire , and because Light is lighter than Wind it is manifest that it is above the Wind. For each of them is lighter than the heavier one underneath it, but heavier than the lighter one above it. And in this correct proportion and just balance there is found the element of Water between the Darkness and the Fire, the one cold underneath it, and the other hot above i t ; and there ended the construction of the Aramaean Philosopher. 1

Lit. ' touch.'

AGAINST MAXI

cvii

For if the Wind smote the Fire which was underneath it and bent it downwards, the Fire did not reach to the Darkness, for the great element of Water stands between it and the Darkness, and therefore that extinguishing Intermediary did not allow the arouser of the Darkness to rub against it and its smoke to diffuse so as to reach to its companion (in Darkness). For it is necessary that if the natures of the Entities are true to their names, if the Fire is a Fire in truth, and not an idle name, then the Water also is Water indeed. And if the opposite to the Fire P. 226. was the Water, then it did not let the Fire approach the Darkness. And because the Water was the neighbour of the Darkness, again cold on cold was added to the Darkness, the opposite of what those people designed (when they say) ' the heat melted its cold and its smoke was diffused' ; whereas if it had diffused itself and gone up, because they stand one above the other as their Natures teach us, light and heavy, would not ' the beginning of the lowest p a r t ' of all of them alone have been destroyed, as Bardaisan says ? For how can heavy and light things in one rank or in one boundary stand in equilibrium ? The scales of a balance, or water and oil put in a vessel, prove that the lighter stands above and the heavier below. And therefore when ' the Darkness sought to go up and reach to the heels and the skirts of the upper Light,' when it ' made an assault to go up,' did it overwhelm completely the Water and the Fire and the Wind, and was ' the beginning P. 227. of the lowest part of the Light' only destroyed ? And therefore they are refuted, and the School of Bardaisan cannot go on inventing from his principles. Again the Manicheans say a thing that is refuted from itself ; for their words are wont to quarrel one with the other, because they have not acquired unity from love nor equilibrium from truth. For they say that the Darkness has been mixed with Light, a word that may seem probable to the inexperienced, but to thinkers self-contradictory ; and because that speaker was afraid of what he had said, in that he knew that many . . .

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

p# 228,

For as the Laws reprove the transgressors of the Laws, so 1. 7.

cviii

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

the Holy Scriptures reprove those who transgress beyond the limit of the Scriptures. But as robbers and thieves without law . . . *

*

*

4c

*

*

*

. . . to be land for their tares. Therefore let them establish that if there are bound [Natures], that is, Light and Wind and Water and Fire . . . that knowledge is not in them. But if they are corporeal Bodies, things corporeal cannot eat spiritual Natures. But if from their skins are the Heavens, and from their excrement the Earth, and from their bo[nes] the Mountains, lo, they have . . . . . . If from the sheath-skins again of their bodies came Heaven and Earth, what sheath-skins belong to Light and to Wind and to Fire and to Water and to Darkness ? And therefore if all these sons of the Darkness . . . The end of this Discourse is not preserved in the Palimpsest, but the missing part was probably not longer than two of these pages : see p. cxi.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE MARCION left t h e Catholic Church BARDAISAN MANI

„ „

born

born

first proclaimed his Religion, killed b y B a h r a m (Varanes I )

A. GR.

A.D.

449

138

11 J u l y , 465

154

527

216

20 March, 553

242

586

275

9 J u n e , 684

S. ErHRAiM died

373

F o r Marcion, Bardaisan, a n d E p h r a i m , these s t a t e m e n t s are t a k e n f r o m t h e C'hronicon Edessenum (ed. Guidi, 1903). The d a t e of Mani's birth is given b y Mani himself in t h e S h ä p u r a k ä n (quoted by Al-Birüni, pp. 121, 190); his Religion is d a t e d according t o A n - N a d i m (Flügel, p. 149, corrected in Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber, p. 412). T h e Chronicon Edessenum p u t s Mani's b i r t h in 240 A.D., by a confusion with t h e d a t e of t h e proclamation of Manicheism.

cx

INTRODUCTORY

ESSAY

BY F. C. BUBKITT 1. The MS.

Sources.

THE texts edited in these volumes of S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations are the contents of a sixth-century MS. in the British Museum, the two parts of which are numbered Add. 14574 and Add. 14623. The technical description of these MSS. is given in a separate Note : it will suffice here to say that 14574 contains the first 19 leaves (i.e. the first two quires) in their original condition, while 14623 consists of the 88 leaves which a monk named Aaron used in 823 A.D. for transcribing a fresh volume of miscellaneous contents. The original writing was washed out, and as Aaron's own hand is both small and thick it is often very difficult to decipher the ancient script underneath ; the new order of the leaves, moreover, bears no relation to the old, so that it was one of Mr. Mitchell's first difficulties to discover the original sequence of the fragments he transcribed. But this was happily and completely done, and one result was to establish the fact that, irregular as the order was, the 88 leaves of Add. 14623 contain nothing but leaves from the same ancient codex, and that no intermediate gaps occur. The 88 leaves of 14623 are actually the 88 leaves that once came after fol. 19 of Add. 14574. We may therefore reasonably infer that very little is missing at the end, and treat what survives as a connected whole. From the scribe's point of view the volume consisted of two parts, of nearly equal size. Part I contained the Five Books addressed to Hypatius, edited in vol. i of this edition ; this part has the headline ' Of Hypatius ' at the middle and ends of the quires. Part I I is more miscellaneous : it consists of seven pieces, none of which have any organic connexion with the others, though cxi

cxii

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

they are all by S. Ephraim. The first of these is directed against certain opinions of Bardaisan about Space and Perception which were contained in a work of his called ' Of Domnus (a»euis».n).' Accordingly the scribe uses ' Of Domnus ' for the headlines of his Part I I , but the title is merely a scribe's fancy, and the remaining six pieces have nothing to do with Domnus. I t is not even certain what the title ' Of Domnus ' for the lost work of Bardaisan really signified. It may have been a work addressed to a certain Domnus, just as Ephraim's ' Of Hypatius ' is the scribe's short title for Ephraim's Five Books addressed to Hypatius. But nothing is known of such a personage. There was a Domnus Bishop of Antioch, the rival of Paul of Samosata, in 269 A.D., but the name was not common in early times. Following Ephraim's polemic against Bardaisan's Domnus come three tracts against Marcion, succeeded by a metrical discourse against Bardaisan, and a quasi-metrical discourse on Virginity. It is not easy to see why this latter piece was included in the collection, as it has nothing to do with the heresies attacked in the other pieces. Finally there is a prose tract against Mani, which appears to have concluded the volume ; this work is quite distinct from the Discourses to Hypatius, and contains some important references to Manichean doctrines and nomenclature, as well as some direct quotations from lost works by Bardaisan and his school. I have been able to supply from other sources a certain number of confirmations and additions to the text of Add. 14623, so ingeniously deciphered by Mr. Mitchell. These are : (1) a long quotation from Book I V and a short quotation from Book V of the Hypatius,1 both taken from one of the ancient collections of doctrinal Extracts in which the Nitrian Library was so rich. The two quotations together make up 103 lines, which is just as long as one of the three-column pages of the MS, or as one of the pages of the English translation. 2 Short as the extracts are they afford a most valuable indication of the degree of accuracy which Mr. Mitchell was able to attain in the difficult work of decipherment, and encourage readers who cannot examine the Palimpsest 1 a

For details, see the List of Additions and Corrections. It is about 2J pages of the printed Syriac.

INTRODUCTORY

ESSAY

cxiii

for themselves to accept the Syriac text as printed in these volumes with a very considerable measure of confidence. (2) Similar extracts from the metrical Discourse against Bardaisan will be found noted in the text of this volume. The longest of these are taken from Add. 14623 itself, as the monk Aaron, before obliterating the ancient writing, copied out the equivalent of six pages of the printed Syriac, i.e. between two and three pages of the ancient MS. A good deal of the part thus copied out by Aaron and now preserved in the upper writing of 14623 is practically illegible in the ancient writing, so that the extracts make a considerable addition to our knowledge. (3) Aaron copied out the whole of the Discourse on Virginity, which therefore survives entire. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the modern scholar, this is much the least interesting piece in the volume, but as in the case of the other extracts it enables us to check Mr. Mitchell's work in parts where the Palimpsest is too illegible to make a continuous text. I t is curious that Mr. Mitchell should not have noticed these extracts from the lower text in the upper writing, all the more as the extracts from the Discourse against Bardaisan had been published long ago by Overbeck. But it was a fortunate oversight, for (as I said above) it enables us to check the accuracy of his work of transcription. (4) The Discourse on Virginity, which is written in a poetical style, but not in any regular metre, was afterwards turned into metrical Hymns by a process of curtailment and transposition. This form survives in Vat. Syr. cxi. (A.D. 522) and some later MSS. in the British Museum. The text is printed by Lamy at the end of his vol. ii., but as we possess Aaron's transcript of the original there was no need to record the variations. 2. S. Ephraim as a Controversialist. From the point of view of a modern scholar, whose chief interest is to recover the lost works and theories of ancient thinkers, whether orthodox or heterodox, S. Ephraim's literary methods are very unsatisfactory. He makes few direct quotations from the writers whom he is controverting, nor does he explain the I

cxiv

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

outlines of their system, or distinguish the books of his opponents. It is all piecemeal work. No effort is made to understand the opponent's system as a whole, but single debating points are taken, sometimes with a good deal of ingenuity, in order to shew the weak places of the adversary. As we do not possess the corresponding Marcionite or Bardesanian polemic against the Catholic system, the result is to give an impression of Catholic common sense as opposed to heretical fancy or perverseness. This is unfortunate in two ways. At the time, no doubt, it was quite an effective method of convincing Ephraim's supporters that reason was on their side and folly on the side of the vaunted heretical philosophy. In our day it has sometimes an opposite effect. We see that justice is not being done to the heretics, that the Catholic writer, who alone now survives, is both judge and advocate. We dimly feel that the controversy is about great subjects, that these heretics were thinkers conscious of the difficulties of the greater problems of human life, some of which still perplex us, and we sometimes, by a kind of reaction, tend to assume that the heretical systems were really philosophical, nearer to our ways of thinking than the world in which the Catholic controversialist lived. At least we tend to assume that the systems of the greater heretics were consistent wholes. Yet this is by no means certain. I venture to hope that a really consistent philosophy, unhampered by definitely wrong beliefs, whether about the physical or moral world, would have had more power of successful resistance. The religion both of Marcion and of Mani must have had in them much that corresponded to human needs, or they would not have had their long and honourable records of persistence under persecution ; but they were both hampered by irrational elements. One point may be urged in S. Ephraim's favour. So far as we know, though he is unsympathetic he is not unfair. He does not seem actually to misrepresent the theories of his opponents or to misquote them. The worst that can be said is that he seems totally unconscious of the difficulties involved in these controversies, and this all the more as his work is wholly critical and destructive, except to a certain extent in the treatise against Bardaisan's Domnus. He is content with picking holes in his antagonists

INTRODUCTORY

ESSAY

cxv

and does not give us his own philosophy, exccpt by scattered hints. On this perhaps a few words may be said, mainly with regard to the meaning of certain Syriac terms. Ephraim may be described as a Monist and a Materialist. That is to say, he recognises only one self-existing original entity or being (^..k-fs', Ithya), viz. God. The opposite to an Ithya is k * . -i (p. 219,1. 41), i.e. a thing made. What we see around us in this world are made things, things which came into being by God's will. Properties and characters were given to made things by God's will, and so, if He wills it, their properties are liable to change. An Ithya, on the other hand, does not and cannot change ; it has a ' bound nature' At the same time, created things do actually exist; they have ' substance,' which varies according to the ' nature ' of the thing. For ' substance ' the Syriac is . t a e m i (knoma), and for 1 nature ' T-.. ~ (kyana,). The word knoma is of considerable interest, inasmuch it has been chosen to render vTroa-Tauiu, i.e. ' P e r s o n ' in speaking of the Trinity, while bar kyana (' of the same Nature ') is used for o^oou'ow. The special value of the use of these words in these treatises is t h a t S. Ephraim is employing them philosophically, yet quite apart from their special theological use to render certain Greek technical terms. I have translated knoma by ' substance,' but this meaning shades off into ' individuality,' and no doubt this was the aspect of the word that made it appropriate to render Hypostasis or Person in the Trinitarian sense. On p. 63, 1. 30, we find " David his knoma," i.e. " David in his own person," as distinguished from some son or descendant of David. Yet I think there is in knoma always the notion of reality, i.e. of materiality. Ephraim talks about ' black knome ' (p. 41, 1. 36), and in p. 174, 1. 20, it is used of wood. The whole passage indeed is worth quotation, as it exhibits very well Ephraim's philosophy of substance. " Fire," he says, " is buried and dead imperceptibly (in wood), and the rubbing of one bit of wood with another brings it to life, to the destruction of both. For when it has come to life it turns and burns the substance which gave it life by being conjoined with it." That is to say, Fire is a separate substance really existing within

cxvi

s. EPHRAIM'S

REPUTATIONS

the substance of wood. On the other hand, verbal nouns like ' buying ' and ' selling ' have no substance (p. 18, 1. 34 f.) ; they are only notions in the mind. Ephraim's argument to prove that Space has no substance should be read at length (pp. iv—viii). It seems to me a very creditable piece of reasoning, especially in view of the fact that he did not possess two pieces of mental apparatus which facilitate our discussions of such subjects. He had no word for ' Space ' as such, which we can so easily represent to our eyes by the use of a capital letter and (where necessary) of inverted commas ; and neither he nor his opponent Bardaisan had the idea of Cartesian axes, whereby all space is rendered manageable by dividing it into eight cubes all meeting at a definite point, from which measures can be taken. What is perhaps more remarkable is that Ephraim does not regard Darkness as substantial (p. 40, 11. 7-12). No doubt he was helped to this view by the contrary views of Bardaisan and Mani, who held Darkness to be something positive. 1 After all, it is partly a question of terminology. Whatever the corresponding Greek and Latin words may mean, ' Darkness ' in English is wholly unsubstantial, the mere absence of Light. But (heshshdxa) in Syriac means the Dark substance, TO CTKOTWOV, quite as much as the state of Darkness, TO O-KOTOO-. In translating the notions of Bardaisan and Mani into English it is therefore often more appropriate to speak of the Dark or the Dark substance than of the

Darkness.

Kyana, 'nature,' is exactly ^verier. It implies generally a set of qualities or characteristics. No transliteration of ova-la is used in these treatises, and parsopa occurs only once (ii. p. 26, 1. 16), where it seems to mean ' person ' in the ordinary English sense, i.e. ' individual.' 1 On this subject see the remarkable catena of passages, brought forward in illustration of Milton's Paradise Regained iv 397'—400, by J . E. B. Mayor in the Journal of Philology LVI, pp. 289—292 (1903). To S. Basil the Darkness was an evil Power, but to S. Augustine, as to S. Ephraim, it was only the absence of Light.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 3. The System

of

cxvii

Marcion.

These treatises tell us more about Syriac-speaking Marcionites than is told in any other extant source. The main result is to shew that they were very similar in their beliefs and practices to the Marcionites elsewhere, especially as described in Eznik's wellknown chapters against them. 1 In fact, it is very likely that Eznik's account is not so much an original description of the Armenian Marcionites known to him as a translation from some early Syriac writer. I t is important to notice at the outset that S. Ephraim's polemic against Marcion differs in one respect from that of Tertullian and Epiphanius: there is no controversy about Marcion's Gospel. Marcion, who rejected the authority of the Old Testament as the work of the Adversary of Jesus, considered that most of the writings current among Christians had been interpolated in the interests of Judaism, and the only Gospel he received was a shortened recension of Luke. According to Tertullian and Epiphanius, with whom almost all modern scholars are in agreement, Marcion's Gospel was an arbitrary mutilation of the text, while Marcion no doubt regarded it as the genuine Evangel purged of alien elements. In any case it was obviously a variant form of the canonical Luke, and opponents of Marcion who were accustomed to use the Canonical Luke were concerned to vindicate the superiority of the text familiar to them. But Ephraim and the branch of the Catholic Church to which he belonged habitually used the Diatessaron, not the four separate Gospels. He seems to have been quite unfamiliar with the Gospels as separate literary works (though he knew something about the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel),2 and probably did not recognise Marcion's Gospel as being one of the Canonical Four used by Greek and Latin orthodox Christians. However that may be, he says nothing about it. Possibly he did not even know the Marcionite Gospel itself, and only bases his polemic on Marcionite theological and controversial works which quote it. 1

Eznik of Kolb, Against the Sects, trans, by J. M. Schmid (Vienna, 1900), pp. 172-178, 204—5 ; the original Armenian of the most important sections is to be found in Petermann's Grammar and Chrestomathy, pp. 14-17. 2 See, for instance, vol. i. p. xc.

cxviii

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

The most striking new fact about Marcionite usage brought out by these treatises is that the Syriac-speaking Marcionites used a different transliteration of the name ' Jesus ' from the orthodox. The ordinary Syriac for ' Jesus ' is ^ o u (pronounced 'Tsho' by Nestorians but Yeshu' by Jacobites), which is simply the Syriac form of the Old Testament name Joshua. 1 This form was used not only by the orthodox, but also by the Manichees. It was therefore a surprise to find that Ephraim in arguing against Marcionites, and certainly in part quoting from their books or sayings, uses the form nau, a direct transcription of the Greek 'Irjo-ov (or 'Irjo-ova). As it is always written nau, never o A corresponds exactly to ' inverted commas,' but unfortunately there is no corresponding word or sign to mark the ends of quotations.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY

exxi

in the lowest, on the earth, was the domain of Matter ; between them, above the earth, was the domain of the Creator or Maker, the God of Justice and Law, who had made Man out of Matter in his own image. When the Voice came at the Transfiguration, saying, ' This is My Son,' how, says Ephraim, did they know it was the Stranger's Voice, and not that of the God of the Law ? If it was the Stranger, speaking from the heavens above us, how had He got there ? This is a good debating point; but just as we see how very much easier the controversy between Ephraim and Bardaisan would have been, if they had considered Space as measured with Cartesian axes, so I venture to think Marcion would have made his meaning clearer if he had placed his Kind Stranger in a ' fourth dimension.' The essential thing about the Kind Stranger who can and will forgive freely is that He is not in or of this tangible and measurable world. At least this is so, except in so far as the very notions in Marcion's mind are part of the whole of Nature. With this proviso, the whole of Marcion's system is essentially built upon the same lines as the religion outlined in Huxley's famous Romanes Lecture. Nature is red in tooth and claw, in this world an eye is exacted for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (or its equivalent). Action and reaction are equal and opposite, and the Law of the Conservation of Energy seems to be unbroken. But Man can imagine, more or less, another world where this is not the case, and his mind can take refuge in this fairyland, which is outside the visible universe. Marcion did not, as a matter of fact, put his thoughts in this way. He was, as Ephraim says (p. lvii), ' half in and half o u t ' of orthodox thought, and so was liable to charges of inconsistency. His great merit is that he felt the charm of the Gospel message apart from the sanction of the Old Testament. Ephraim starts off his polemic against Marcion by appealing to the miracles of the Exodus, and to alleged confirmations of Old Testament wonders in the archives of Egypt and Babylon, an argument which now only raises a smile. But Marcion's position is not similarlv affected by modern discovery : the God to Whom he gave his allegiance was always outside -of this visible world, and if the visible world has been found not to be geocentric that matters

cxxii

S. EPHRAIM'S

REFUTATIONS

less to him than to those whose God had His throne ' above the bright blue sky.' Apart from their views about the Bible the Marcionites appear in these treatises as an ultra-pietistic school, who fast more than Ezekiel and pray more than Daniel. Indeed, they claim to pray all day (p. xxxi med.). The early orthodox Syriacspeaking Church esteemed virginity so highly, t h a t we need not be surprised that Ephraim does not touch upon Marcion's rejection of Christian marriage. According to vol. i. p. 129, 1. 1 (p. xciv), the Marcionites worshipped towards the West. 4, The System

of

Bardaisan.

The treatises of Ephraim add little fresh to what we knew already about Marcion and the Marcionites, but they do add greatly to our knowledge of Bardaisan's system. So scattered and piecemeal, however, are the bits of information which Ephraim gives us t h a t I will begin by quoting what Moses bar Kepha says about him. 1 " Bardaisan held about this world that it is composed of Five Entities (Ithye), viz. Fire and Wind and Water and Light and Darkness. Each of these was standing in its own region, Light in the East, Wind in the West, Fire in the South, Water in the North, the Lord of them all in the Height, and their Enemy, the Dark, in the Depth below. Once upon a time, whether from some external body or by chance, they were hurled 2 one against another, and the Dark ventured to come up from the Depth to mingle together with them. Then the pure Entities began to run away and flee from the Dark and appealed to the mercy of the Most High to deliver them from the dirty colour that was mingled with them, i.e. from the Dark. Then, says he, at the sound of the commotion the Word (Memra) of the Intention of the Most High, which is the Christ, came down and cut off the Dark from being in the midst of the pure Entities, and it was hurled down and fell to the lower part of its nature, and He set 1 Text and Translation given in F. Nau's Bardesanes (Patrologia Syriaca I, vol. ii, p. 513-515). 2 - • • ^ i . f . Read cum-TAiif as on p. 215,1. 14, oro_»i\4 r , corresponding to the Rabbinic Shechinah : even t h e passage quoted by Kugener from E p h r a i m (ES. iii 568A) in Cumont, p. 9, shews t h a t t h e word suggests manifestations of t h e invisible Godhead. 2 ^ ....•11 Augustine (c. Faust, ii 3) seems t o have h a d aer : see Flugel's Mani, p. 213. " i t i a j i • n (vol. i. p. 101, 1. 18), translated ' Sons of the Bright Ones' on p. lxxix, is otherwise quite unattested and can hardly be right.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY

cxxxv

On the one hand the Primal Man was left lying unconscious on the field and his Zlwane were swallowed by the Dark, on the other both Ephraim (i. p. lxxix) and Titus of Bostra (A 17) tell us that the Zlwane were used by the Primal Man as a bait (SeXeap) to catch the Sons of the Dark and so to return them to their own place. However t h a t may be, the result was that Light was mixed with the Dark, and the problem then was, first, how to restrain the Sons of the Dark, and secondly, how to separate the Light that had been mixed in them. These Sons of the Dark were called by Manichees t:\-ic\-airrc (Archons), a word which always has in Syriac the sinister significance of a Demoniac Ruler. In vol. ii. p. xci it is twice used in the singular of the Evil Power. The Primal Man recovered from his swoon, and aided by fresh Light-powers 1 he ' hunted the Sons of the Dark and flayed them, and made this Sky from their skins, and out of their excrement he compacted the Earth, and of their bones he forged and raised and piled up the Mountains' (i. p. xxxiii), and he did all this in order to strain out from them by rain and dew the ' Parts of the L i g h t ' that had been mixed in them. According to Theodore bar Khoni this mixed material world, composed of the parts of the Archons, who yet have particles of Light mingled in their substance, is held in place by five heavenly powers, who are also named in Greek and Latin sources. They are rCo_M

£yy0KaT0X0s

Splenditenens Rex Honoris Adamas Heros Gloriosus Rex

"íifwópos

Atlas

•Vtcdoj cacm-Trf iel=ea

Maximus

Of these the nsl=e (Sabbald), the Supporter, is mentioned in ii. 2O839 ( = p . xcviii), and the Splenditenens in the preceding line. Unfortunately only the latter half of the title is legible. The former part (end of 1. 37) cannot be read, but it was certainly not or i»-=5- To me it looks more like «^jr-unre- or i u i k , but the fact is t h a t the script has perished. This is all the more 1 These (Cumont, p. 20) are the Friend of the Lights, the Great Ban, and the Living Spirit. Of these only Ban is mentioned by S. Ephraim (i. pp. xxx, xlvii, lxxv).

cxxxvi

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

provoking as the meaning of the Syriac word used by Theodore is doubtful. 1 The Archons being thus chained up, Theodore tells us that a certain amount of the absorbed Light was refined out of them a t once, and from it was made the Sun and Moon and the Stars. But much yet remained in the Archons, and so a new personage was contrived, the Messenger (rciS^.«-«^), called also the Virgin of Light by Ephraim, who ' manifests her beauty to the Archons, so that they long to run after her ' (i. p. lxi f.). 2 As a result, the details of which may be studied in Cumont's Note (pp. 54-68), plants and animals were produced on the Earth by the Archons, who, fearing to lose all the Light they had absorbed, at last produce a new being, Adam, which they form in the image of God, i.e. in the image of the Primal Man, the divine rttirc. Once again their design fails, for Jesus the Ziwana (rejeun -mij) comes, it is not explained how, to Adam as he lies inert upon the ground. Adam looks at himself and recognises who he is, i.e. that he is a being at least partly made of the Light. 3 ' Jesus made him stand up and gave him to eat of the Tree of Life. 4 Then Adam looked and wept, he lifted up his voice like a roaring lion, he tore his hair, he beat his breast, and said, " Woe, woe to the creator of my body, to him who has bound my soul to it, and to the rebels who have enslaved me ! " ' 5 Ephraim does not refer to this striking passage, which Cumont regards as the actual peroration of the Epistula Fundamenti, one of the most widely read writings of Mani. So much for the Past. In the Present, according to Mani, a great mechanism has been contrived for refining out of the world what is left of the Parts of the Light that hacl been absorbed: the arrangement of this mechanism was in fact the salvation 1

The Greek and the Latin terms must surely represent the general meaning, all the more as one of the chief functions of Splenditenens is to hold the world suspended, like a chandelier. It seems to me probable that must be an adaptation of the Assyrian sabit (Assurnazirpal, for instance, calls himself sabit liti, ' holder of hostages '). Compare also the Jewish Aramaic NilD'V, ' tongs.' 2 The Virgin of Light is named also in ii. 208, 1. 44. * Cumont, p. 46 f. • According to the Acta Archelai x Jesus was Himself the Tree of Life. But the text may not be sound. 6 Cumont, p. 48 f.

INTRODUCTORY

ESSAY

cxxxvii

brought by Jesus, when He came on earth and those that saw Him supposed erroneously that He was really a man. 1 By it the Light that is separated out is conveyed to the Moon, whereby it waxes for fifteen days, and then when full discharges its load of Light for another fifteen days into the Sun. The Pillar of Glory (rejuL=o_t «^&\a>rc-) is named in ii. 208,1. 37 ( = p . xcviii), the only place where the original Syriac term is known to occur. This ' Pillar ' is either the way up to the Moon, as the Fihrist seems to imply, or that in which redeemed souls wait till all is fulfilled, as is stated in the Acta Archelai. In either case the Manichees appear to have meant by it the Milky Way. It is also called in the Acta Archelai the Perfect Man, Vir perfectus. Epiphanius changes avrjp into ayp, but thereby the imagery is spoilt, for it is evidently taken from Eph. iv 13 (cto* avSpa TCXCIOV) ! the redeemed souls are collected in the Pillar of Glory till all the particles of the absorbed Light have been refined out of the substance of the Archons and the Primal Man is perfect again. 2 The most potent agents in refining out the Light are, of course, the fully initiated disciples of Mani, but exactly how they did it cannot be ascertained from S. Ephraim, for obvious reasons. It is not very difficult to be sarcastic with this part of the Manichaean system, and Ephraim takes advantage of most of the obvious openings. What is more interesting is the very small number of the highest class of Initiates, the K P H A L P A L E ( K I A I S L O , ii. 205 7 , 206 27 ). In the first of these passages Ephraim speaks of Five, in the second of a Pair, which perhaps means much the same thing. Certainly these personages were able to give all their time to their mysterious work, for there was very little else that it was permitted to a fully initiated Manichee to do. They might neither take life nor produce it, whether animal or vegetable, so that agriculture and cooking were as much taboo as murder and adultery. In i. p. xciii Ephraim depicts the initiate Manichee women, the Z A D D I K A T H A , as sitting idle from religious motives. It is curious to hear a fellow-countryman of S. Alexius and S. Simeon Stylites rebuking the unworldly inactivities of the Manichees ! 1 2

Acta Archelai viii.

It should be noted that the belief that the Spirits of the Just live on in the Milky Way is Stoic : see Somnium Scipionis (circa med.).

S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS In general, as may be seen from the peroration of the Hypatius Discourses, the lives of the Manichaean devotees must have been spent in a manner not unlike that of the ' Sons of the Covenant' and other Christian ascetics of the East: ' their works are like our works, as their fast is like our fast' (i. p. cxix). No doubt they spent a good deal of their time in transcribing and ornamenting their sacred writings, as may be gathered from S. Augustine and from the remains of very handsome MSS. dug up in Turf an in Central Asia. In this they were followers of Mani himself, who ' painted in colours on a scroll the likenesses of the wickednesses which he created out of his mind ' (i. p. xciii). As to the Future, the Manichees, like the Christians, looked forward to a victorious end of the present state of things. When all the Parts of the Light have been refined out of the base material, Evil, which is the result of the mixture of Light and .Dark, will have disappeared. The Earth of Light (K-TOJOJ -».ire"), in which God dwells and which is itself Divine (i. pp. lviii, lix, xcvi), will be complete and inviolate, and the powers of the Dark will be confined inside their own domain, round which BAN, the Heavenly Builder, has now built a wall and fence, to be the Grave of the Darkness for ever (i. pp. xxx, xlvi, lxxv). Such are the main outlines of the system of Mani, on almost every part of which the Refutations of S. Ephraim throw a certain amount of fresh light. This is not the place to attempt a critical study of the sources and connexions of this fantastic Religion, that had in spite of almost continual persecution so long and sometimes so victorious a career. I shall only bring forward one point, on which the Refutations curiously confirm the evidence of the Acta Archelai, of Titus of Bostra, and of Evodius, as its elucidation seems to have an important bearing upon the origin of Mani's stock of ideas. Evodius, the friend and correspondent of S. Augustine, tells us (De Fid. c. Manich. 5) that the Manichees taught that the Souls which deliberately preferred Darkness to Light and the sensual life to redemption will remain for ever conjoined with matter in the region of the Dark. Such souls, together with the rest of the Dark substance from which all the Light has been extracted, will

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY

cxxxix

be compacted together in a great round Clod {globus). Titus of Bostra tells us the same.1 and the same doctrine is set forth in the Acta Archelai x, the original Greek of which, as quoted by Epiphanius, speaks of the evil man as being for ©Ver &€$€[JL€VO(J tlfT rrjv fiuAov. In agreement with all this we read at the end of the Third Discourse to Hypatius (i. p. 87, 1. 35 fi.) : 3 ' How do they say that some of these Souls who have sinned much and done much wickedness and blasphemed much and have been guilty of great unbelief, those which are found like dregs in the midst of that which they call BOLOS, as they say, that when the Fire dissolves all, within it is collected every thing that is mixed and mingled in created things from the Lights, and " those souls who have done much wickedness are assigned to the realm of the Darkness when it is tortured." ' It is clear from all these testimonies that the Manichees not only held this doctrine, but that they called this mass of burning filth the BOLOS, a word which is not Syriac at all, but the Greek for ' a clod.' 3 Alexander of Lycopolis, himself a heathen, treats Manichaeanism as a New Christianity. This view of it has been unpopular in recent years, for modern scholars have preferred to see in it a more or less independent Oriental Religion, and have tended to consider the form of it which spread to the West and to which Augustine was for so many years a convert as an adaptation fitted to a land where Catholic Christianity had become the established religion. But the name of the Bolus, now attested in the Syriac of Ephraim, cannot have come from anything but a Greek source. It suggests to us that Mani drew his inspiration from the West as much as, if not more than, from the East around him. And the Bolus does not stand alone. That Mani did call himself the ' Paraclete ' is confirmed by Ephraim (ii. p. 209 11 ), 4 but 1 Tit. Bost. A 41 : the sinful souls . . , i n jj Kaxia Kéywv.

ifinayli. 4 211 5 207 » 6 202 „ 7 198 8 Vol. I, p. 33 „ 9 28 „ 10 46 » 11 37 „ 12 63 » 13 23 .. 14 50 15 „ 16 42 59 17 55 „ 18 68 „ 19 „ 20 85 77 .. 21 72 » 22 81 >, 23 94 » 24 103 „ 25 98 „ 26 89 27 107 „ 28 111 „ 29

Folio 30 begins in Vol. I, p. 176 „ 31 „ „ 146 „ 32 „ Vol. II, p. 1 „ 33 „ Vol. I, p. 137 „ 34 „ „ 124 „ 35 „ „ 164 „ 36 „ „ 115 „ 37 „ „ 173 „ 38 „ „ 151 „ 39 „ „ 160 „ 40 „ „ 181 „ 41 „ • „ 133 „ 42 „ „ 155 „ 43 „ „ 142 „ 44 „ „ 121) „ 45 „ Vol. II, p. 10 „ 46 „ Vol. I, p. 129 „ 47 „ „ 168 „48 „ Vol II, p. 6 „ 49 190 „ 50 126 „ 51 135 „ 52 108 175 „ 53 170 „ 54 139 „ 55 „ 113 „ 56 „ 122 „ 57 155 „ 58

TABLE Folio 59 begins in Vol. II, p. 60 60 „ „ 90 61 94 62 85 63 „ 55 64 „ 14 65 72 66 „ 64 68 67 68 „ 99 69 „ 81 70 » 37 23 71 72 „ 51 73 41

II

cxlix

Folio 74 begins in Vol. II, p. „ 75 11

28 19 46 82 77 145 159 180 194 131 118 150 164 185 104

» » » ,, „ „

76 77 78 79 80 81

„ „ „ „

82 83 84 85

» „ „

86 87 88

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

INDEX OF BIBLICAL

ALLUSIONS.

THE following List contains all the Biblical allusions in the Refuta tions which have any textual interest, but mere references by Ephraim to a Bible personage or event are not included. The larger Arabic figures refer to the page of the Syriac text, the smaller to the line. ECCLESIASTES

GENESIS

i 2741 i 11433 ii 5832 87 29

i 14" i 26 iii 24

EXODUS

iv 11 iv 24-26

ii 1774 ii 7 537 45 ii 11339

XXI

ii 2518

iii 1 EZRA

ii 5141 ii 514B

iv 15 vi I f . ISAIAH

xlv 18 Iii 3 lviii 5 ff.

i 13425 ii 135« ii 74 1 1 2 3

DEUTERONOMY

xxii 27 xxxii 22

ii 1776 8 ii 99 1 0 2 3

ZECHARIAH

ix 9

ii 1036 MALACHI

JOB

i S xvi 15

i 1034 ii 7336

iii 1 iv 1

ii 1056 ii 1153« JEREMIAH

2

SAMUEL

xl 2, 3 a

ii 5122 25 EZEKIEL

PSALMS

xxxvii 37 lxix 11 (12) xci 7 civ 1 cix 24

ii 11545 ii 7340 ii 11543 i 4P- 11 ii 7332

viii 7-16

i 12525 12624 128u~23

DANIEL

iii 23 vii 13 xii 13

ff.

ii 681 ii 10311 i 1428

INDEX OF BIBLICAL ALLUSIONS xvii. 21 xviii 13 xviii 42 xxiv 39»

MATTHEW

v 5, 3 ii 7226 vii 18 (see Lk vi 43) vii 20 i 18423 ix 16 (see Lk v 36) xi 6 ii 866- 34 xiv 28 Overbeck 27 ? ' 1 8 xxiii 15 ii 222 36 MARK

vi 27

ii 10845 LÜKE

i 32 ii 115« v 36 ii 14213 vi 10 ii 14132 vi 43 Overbeek 55 21 vii 19 ii 6 2 u 8 2 « vii 23 (see Matt xi 6) vii 24 ii 828 ix 35 ii 93 1 94 15 x 1 ii 898 x 22 ii 72 1

eli

ii 11439 Overbeck 2813 ii 10617 ii 1471 JOHN

27

i 4 viii 51 f. x 8 xi 23 xx 25 1

i 12 1 44 -12 23 ii 164 21 i 1438 ii 165« ii 16 339, 41

CORINTHIANS

ii 8 iii 16, 17

ii 724 i 12343

EPHESIANS

i 4

ii 8916 COLOSSIANS

i 15b iii 9

ii 14040 ii 1702 1 TIMOTHY

ii 15

Note on the Text of certain

ii 10010

Passages.

As in his other works, so here, S. Ephraim is a witness for a text of the Syriac OT almost exactly agreeing with that of our MSS and printed editions. In several instances he quotes with the slight inaccuracies of a man who has not verified his allusions. Thus the long quotation of Isaiah Iviii 5-7 a is not accurate, but it contains the characteristic renderings of the Peshitta, such as n^Aai^ ( = 'bulrush,' lit. 'crooked stick') in v. 5 and r c u o u i « in v. 7. Similarly the allusions to Ezek viii 7-16 contain the characteristic word icsaoi\oae ( = ' p o r c h , ' lit. 'screen' or 'railings '), as in the printed text of syr. vg. The following passages contain points of textual interest. Exod iv 24-26 (vol. ii, p. 75 = xxxivf.) This is an allusion only, but it states that God constrained

olii

INDEX OF BIBLICAL

ALLUSIONS

Moses by an angel to send his wife back to Midian. It is clear from ES i 205 C that this view of the passage does not imply that Ephraim's text of Exod iv 26* differed from syr. vg. 1 Deut xxii 27 (vol. ii, p. 1776 = Ixxxiii) . 'ci-»pe' iuAo i\\ i. n This, notwithstanding the >A, is not a quotation from the Bible, for syr. vg has coA J ^ o . . . r-*- — • ^ k-1^3. Moreover Ephraim speaks of the rivzn, where syr. vg has —^ • •• 1 cannot trace the source of this allusion : it is not the Didascalia. 2 Sam xiii 5 ff. (vol. ii, p. 17829 = lxxxiv) The Peshitta renders the TO21?- cakes of the Hebrew by K"4»o_aA i.e. ' hearts,' and this is made by Ephraim the basis of a play upon words. It should be noticed that Ephraim spells Amnon's name ^ c u s u i (Hamnon), as in the Peshitta, though the Hebrew is I t m . Similarly 'Jephthah' appears as Nephtah (p. lxxxvi). Psalm civ 1 (vol. i, p. 41' = xlviii) • '¿-••w^ • lT°>' —-ava -»mniureM . -i^aTre-o rfrcrso KTCUBUU •• ^cnArc* r^-uxt In Psalm 104, which is: Bless the LORD, my soul! O LORD, Thou hast become very great. We learn from this (1) that Ephraim's Psalter numbered the Psalms as in the Hebrew (and the English Bible), not as in the Greek; and (2) that Ephraim read iuawre- with the Nestorian tradition against -=•»-., which is the Jacobite tradition. The difference in pronunciation is here very small (irevttav or irevtav), but the whole body of West-Syriac tradition supports the dropping of the including the Ambrosian Codex of tho OT and also the Cth cent. Psalter in the British Museum. It is interesting, therefore, to find that Ephraim supports the Nestorian tradition, a tradition now only represented by comparatively late MSS. Ezra iv 15, vi 1 f. (vol. ii, p. 51 41 ' 46 = xxiv) References to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are always 1 In ES i 205 C the Vatican MS Syr. 110, upon which the text of Ephraim's Commentary on Genesis and Exodus professes to be based, reads (_•••» x a re-r.a.331 cn_L»i en < -n —•-aire', as M s ' Mercati kindly has informed me.

INDEX

OF B I B L I C A L

ALLUSIONS

cliii

interesting in a Syriac writer, because these Books are not part of the Syriac Canon.1 I t is important therefore to notice that Ephraim's reference to the Book of Ezra, though introduced by 71 \, is not an exact quotation but only gives the sense of a couple of passages. I t is noteworthy that the same phenomenon recurs in the only two allusions in Aphraates to Ezra (or possibly the last verses of Chronicles), both of which occur in the same Homily xix. Dan iii 23 ff. (vol. ii, p. 68 1 = xxxi) «t V • - t ) is The effective prayer of the friends of Daniel ( V evidently the ' Prayer of Azarias,' which was therefore an integral part of the Peshitta text as known to Ephraim. All the ' apocryphal' portions of Daniel are found in the MSS of the Peshitta, e.g. B.M. Add. 14445, written A.D. 532. Dan vii 13 (vol. ii, p. 103 11 = xlvii) . rcivi**

( iTin* TJ> vy-irc*

This agrees with the printed text in the peculiar rendering of KON 12. For Dltt p in Ezekiel, the Syriac has simply K x i i a , tho ordinary word for ' man.' In the following Notes to the N T allusions, S denotes the Sinai Palimpsest, C Cureton's MS, P the Syriac Vulgate. Matt v 5, 3 (vol. ii, p. 72 26 = xxxiii) • » omjidia i f l • S*n\ Blessed, are the meek in their spirit. This is a mixture of the first and following Beatitudes, but .^ocnjuois agrees with SC and Aphraates against P (j»ov=). Matt vii 20 (vol. i, p. 184 33 = cxix) C

•

l^-J p*-

-1

n^uJtiv _

om_.Tre»k

^n

From their fruits \_ye\ shall recognise them. .^cu^ia&t-x.&t C, [Hiat £.]

¿1 P .

Lk vi 44 has ^ . ^ k s a . [See Corrigenda.]

1 There is actually no MS of Ezra or Nehemiah among the Nitrian MSS in the British Museum!

cliv

INDEX

OF B I B L I C A L

ALLUSIONS

Matt xi 6 (vol. ii, p. 86«' 3 1 = xxxix) . i -i A r i i o l e l i f _»cncLsci^ jBlessed is he, if he be not offended in me. S o

G.

F o r

NSLRE-,

S

h a s

I r^a-iaa rcooio in agreement with Ephraim's allusion, but P has in M a t t r c i d ^ a i t ^ w i i f a o u o and in Mark « m o re&ona. [ H i a t C.\ L k vi 10 (vol. ii, p. 141 32 = lxiv) A mere allusion to the man with the withered hand. L k vi 43 (Overbed; 55 2 1 = Mitchell, vol. i, p. xxvi) . I O U reined 1 1 H w* 1 ^ »rf i u A There is no good tree that bringeth forth bad fruits. For \ • ^ S and P have i u r c rcA. M a t t vii 18 has ' c a n n o t . ' [ H i a t C.] L k vii 19 (vol. ii, p. 6 2 u = x x i x ; p. 82 4 3 = xxxviii) . t • " ^• — o n r^JvuniA oi«* v^A p. 62 Hast them come ? Or for another are we looking ? oon acn iurC p. 82 Art thou he that cometh ' The quotation on p. 82 agrees with the Biblical t e x t (S and P ) , b u t t h e first p a r t of t h a t on p. 62 is different, so t h a t it is j u s t possible t h a t Ephraim may reproduce t h e wording of the Marcionite version. L k vii 24 (vol. ii, p. 82 s = xxxvii) . • ^ m i i k a jH>i A_a ^ a . 1 rr*! i n A reed shaken with every loind. The Biblical text omits ' every,' b u t E p h r a i m repeats « o i A % not only on p. 82, 1. 28, but also elsewhere, p. 107, 1. 2. L k ix 35 (vol. ii, p. 93 1 = x l i i ; p. 94 15 = xliii) . . » *i i *i no o-icn This is my Son and my Beloved ! This is t h e Old Syriac rendering of o vlotr

¡JLOV

O AYA-MQTOA

where-

elvi

INDEX OF B I B L I C A L

ALLUSIONS

ever it occurs, both at the Transfiguration and at the Baptism: no doubt it stood so in the Diatessaron. See Hv. da-Mepharreshe ii 116, 156, 293. Lk xi (vol. ii, p. 89 s = xl) An allusion to the Seventy-two (not Seventy) Disciples. The numbers occur in Lk x 1 and x 17. S has 72 in both places, P has 70 in both, G has 72 in x 1 and 70 in x 17. Lk x 22 (vol. ii, p. 72 1 = xxxiii) . r c i a . re" icArf 1 i^A There is none that knoweth the Father except the Son. This does not agree exactly with any Syriac Biblical text, but Ephraim probably cited it loosely. Lk xvii 21 (vol. ii, 11439 = lii) .1 . 1 K'cnArC« rfltci^Lsa rem Lo, the kingdom of God among you ! For IVToa- V/J.WV IVTLV S and C have ~ o-^V «• as here, but P has -»en .. o»> i,*n oA^A, i.e. ' i s within you.' 1 The Palimpsest clearly reads but SO and P all have m&icL&Xsa. Lk xviii 13 (Overbeck 28 13 = Mitchell, vol. i, p. vi) . rfocn « i a a « A I^» TIT\ ojai*n\ * - oiiljil ^ — Because of his fear he (the Publican) was not daring to l i f t his eyes to heaven. The Greek has OVK rjfleXcv . . . eVapai, and accordingly S and P have ' he was not willing to lift.' But C agrees with Ephraim, who again uses ' d a r e ' in Lamy iii 63. Lk xviii 42 (vol. ii, p. 10617 = xlviii) Evidently a reference, but the Palimpsest is illegible. 1 It is commonly stated that the Diatessaron had ' is in your heart.' This is because Ephraim in his Commentary on the Diatessaron (Moes. 209, 210, 211) three times says that the kingdom ' i s within in your heart,' according to the Armenian translation. The Armenian Bible has ' is within in you.' I do not think it quite certain what Syriac expression is really implied by Moesinger'3 text.

INDEX OF BIBLICAL

ALLUSIONS

clvii

Lk xxiv 39b (vol. ii, p. 1471 = lxviii) . iCiiiii i t s a i ^ iuA ' For there are no bones to a spirit.' An allusion merely, and in 7-syllable metre. Joh i 4 (vol. i, p. 121« .

RTFJUI*"

• I \ -I-T

PCICNOJ

46 „

and 1221 3 = xc) OCOJ^URF

IT*'» N

^

EVJm

p.

1 2 2

That Life is the light of men. According to Ephraim this is the reading of ' the Greek Gospel,' while 'the Gospel' has n^urc instead of i t u r c - «~ By itself rczjrc (i.e. ' m a n ' ) might be singular or plural, and the Manichees perversely took it as singular, interpreting the phrase of the Primal Man, not of mankind. The natural interpretation of Ephraim's terms is that by ' the Gospel' he means the Diatessaron, and by ' the Greek Gospel' he means the Separated Gospels, such texts as 8 and C. S is not extant here : C and P omit Ephraim in his Commentary on the Diatessaron (Moes. 29 and 53) quotes 'the Greek,' meaning apparently the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. Joh viii 51 f. (vol. ii, p. 16421 = lxxvi) . >1 ->\ 1 rtfA \ •> \ «¿\CkS9 i\_l —»iv-L» T rdj_.rf A Whosoever heepeth my word, he shall not ever taste death. These words are repeated in Joh viii 52. S and P have i instead of nr. \ >rf .V r>, which was required to make a 7-syllable line. In the Greek, followed by P, the verb is 'see' in ver. 51, but 'taste' in ver. 52 : S has ' taste' in both places, y 1 s. X comes last in 1 IT* » \ I \ T. t-99 *-» Princes of the world knew him.' i t a K and n A b , in agreement with the Greek.

1 Cor iii 16, 17 (vol. i, p. 12343 4 ' = xci) mJ-a-»ou i i n n f£na rCm-lrCT «^etin' it* ^ •>'•'tn . re'cnA rC —»cno • ) i » i Your bodies are temples of God; and he who shall destroy the temple of God, God shall destroy him. This is an allusion of the usual inaccurate kind, the first clause being obviously influenced by 1 Cor vi 19. But the latter part seems to be an exact quotation of 1 Cor iii 17. It differs from syr. vg, which has \ - •. — and cnA ^ - •• » . This may, of course, be mere inaccuracy, but it is worth notice that it corresponds to the Greek reading 6epel (NABC &c.), while the reading of syr. vg corresponds to ^ddpu (DGLP 47). Eph i 4 (vol. ii, p. 89 16 = xl) ¿ore* —^.T-a TCsaJ-^l T-a 1 ¿»isape-o And saidst that before the foundation of the world Thou dost know them. The textual interest of this allusion to Eph i 4 is, that it shews that Ephraim, like P, used i t a L * aikjo3ii\ for npo Ka.Ta(io\RJ0Div

- ''-' rr* i V

t a n

H

7715,

H

9911,

M a n i 2 1 733 ;

tn H

rfi->o»i< r c ^ n - a j » D

514i ; 4 320, a

literal

fountain ; r < r w i v c v s a i

D

2144,

a

appearance. M

fixed

clxil

INDEX

rCJlülT* M G3 3ü ff . •v. D31« ( = M a n i 209 3 . w i r e H 1 9 « 116 9 1 20 4 4 1 3 8 « ; M a n i 205 2 4 . i f i \ j i f D 35 2 9 ( = opyava). J j H T r e - (oonstr.) H 39 30 ; M 140 3 0 ; V 170 2 0 : « d a i i * M 141 4 &c. TCjiiarf : — r i ^ - u i n r C • - V 185 4 . M 52 5 , c ^ i r r 4 « M 51 29 . n ^ e a i R ' H 13 1 0 1 5 6 7 22 122 4 8 123 4 ; M a n i 19 0 2 191 3 °. n i i j x T ^ D 8 3 9 (? = S.p uov). ( A r a m a i c ) H 122' ; D 7 4 ' 8 1 ; M a n i 225 2 6. ( J e r e m i a h ) M 56' 67 9 70 32 . rs-icnej ^ i r r - H 60 35 63 23 , ^ i ^ m j x I I 6 7 « 134 11 . w A . . 1 SÜW M 56 21 . T- - ' T - M 73 47 80 43 135 41 . H 118 3 3 38 1 2 0 « . H 120«. . see D 26 1 6 30 48 . M a n i 209 3 . k-tW (Space) D l O f 16 33 &c. X

\ — M 52 1 1 68 2 1 . V 172'. H 57 3U 33 . B 144 1 2 157 21 24 1659 - y 1 7 5 c 1 7 9 m A v = i - i x x a U H 17 634 . ja-va M 122 4 6 140 31 45 141 3 '. M a n i 218. :— H 35 2 5 M a n i 208 l s . rcJ_= (attention) D 3 637 . ttcvAo^ H 87 43 . « A . 1 M a n i 2 1 6 30 . 35 M a n i 20 0 . :— i^.ü H 27 2 9 . ^«.ftV H 94 40 . iu-aT, s e e .i i a , tu-coa, A c .

70 3 5 .

C U U H A B 16 4 26 .

i L .v n i

N ID E X — * M 572

_ o _ _ l z > — : ^ -" ^ 32

^ H 3 « a s s a j . i v As-,

'.

4 2

39-° 9 4. 3517.

II

55.r'

—• ^- - ( B a a l i t e ) M rf^a

M a n i 2 0 2 '" . 2 i ì34 M a n i 2 0 2 .

M a n i 2 2 P. \

M

91«.

J ,;: B M G M a n i 201-, 1 2 H 1 8 5 .

v=

1 1 M 1 0 3 .

H 2210

2 0 M a n i 2 0 6 .

4

S 928 (27 t i m e s ) ; D 813 26 (10 t i m e s ); 3 3 36 3 S M 5 3 ; B (12 t i m e s ) ; M a n i 2 0 4 (16 t i m e s ) : in all n a m e d 67 t i m e s , 1 c a l l e d r E A i lr l C V D 8 , i t f a n m 2 5 n ^ s a i * M a n i 2 2 5.

^^nia H

D 1625

k^si

. .,

M a n i 20

633.

1 roi-3 3 M a n i 2 2 3 .

— :

7126.

H

4 6 ( s o r c e r e r ) H 1 2 0 .

t r i o io

i u _ .x v .a H

(8

t i m e s ) ; M (4

t i m e s ) ;B ( t w i c e ) ;M

( t w i c e ) . H 6719

K T o j f t j èul

34 42

M a n i 2 0 8 « .

T4I_= ( a f t e r tu) M 5 822. 3 i l K ^ o i V » ^ D 3 1 .

(to

3 4 s o a r ) D 3 5 V 17 223.

2 0 « _ e u r e " r T . ^ M 7 5 .

( c o l o u r ) M a n i 223" 13

^ojà^

( a n g l e s ) D 20 B 145

«->-.1

11 1632

34

2241

15

.

&c

-

1 2

riitt^ H 1 8 5. Jv^

2 U M 1 4 0 B 169s

iiaj^ M 7515

&c.

1025.

M 12231

33

. 4 0 3 5 B 1 G 4 1 G 5 .

rc-imeu ^ 9 f f

H 2 8. itiai^ M

G441. 3 r M a n i 2 1 4 . '

( a l s o H 112' e t c . ) .

INDEX A j \ . M 6 9 34 716 io 722r, 9J34. « J a i ^ (rt^cJi-o) D 19 22 . r c ^ s a i x . M a n i 222 34 . :— ^ » i s ^ k s » M 134 22 . :— j o e u t ^ r t l D (passim). tJ^M D 2 l45. ^ k J L a i o re-n.J.o.^

D 1 7 22 .

-1 (redundant) :—

M 1-23® 1 2 5 13 . ^jkii Mani 208 18 .

r i ^ m i (goldsmith) D 36 ] . m i B 15 335 . ^ t i m U i o T » M 138 16 . ^ « i H 44 4 ; M (15 times). u i T^a M 63-116 (16 times). V\OT :—cniuao i M 118 7 . i i H 9 29 44 1 6 3 7, 69 15 . i i :—ii M 123 18 126 27 1 3 843. Mani 214 26 30 2 1 5 14 1 '. r f i V ^ . * Mani 2 1 4 29 . » .1 (òui-CTTO.Ta) D 9 22 , see also -" 41 H 43 103 11 ; M 116 2 »' 124 11 127 (of the soul) Mani 2IO28, nia» :— rc-k^ii, H 5 4 J 83 29 . ^ A i :— _ J U J , „ - B 162 13 25. « A t , - t i ^ A i , M 98f &c.; B 155 12 Ac. -coAt H 7 " ; B 159 I9f 23f ; Mani 204' 21 Mani 206 23 . « t e * » ) M 142 10 .

643.

U I Mani 2IO4 &c. rr-.i 1TJB Mani 214 35 . « L 9 J L • . n liLsa Mani 212 4 . A_.rn.jT H 142' ; M 68 16 27 80 44 103 10 . A_>rdjuiT ^ . -ni M 68 1 , see . •c&i D 19 35 2 2 2ff ; Y 187 35 . -J.O_.ti M 51 47 . v y i : — w y i r f H 11 4 2 ; D 2 7 28 ire.

clxv

INDEX nittx-m M a u i 2 0 9 2 . l ^ c n

M 1289 ; B 15127if 152' 15333 ( ' v o w e l ' or ' s y l l a b l e ' ) D 2

63 2

41.

3 1 3.

rcsa-icn ( ' o r g a n s , ' n o t ' l i m b s ' ) M 1 1 7 2 f f &c., -

c f . '»y • (contra am

:

t u r n vyj-saicn-ia D 4 7 1 1 .

reàbicn S » M

_>a>rca i c i i i u 125«".)

rcoxiàu

rfi-x.

:—

am

cm I ) 4 3 2 ' 4 6 4 0 ; _ m « A _ c n M a n i 1 9 8 ' 9 ( t h e o p p o s i t e of _»en u - . - . m H 1 4 u , —»en u —icn D 7 2 8 ) . » _cn

( = 'whereas')

D

224 ;

Mani

21112

220 2 226 18 . rfom : — « U «rAorn H

B 1 5 8 3 9 16 8 3 3 .

7013 7119 M 98

rr^ocn Y

18

18718

140« «

12 0 20

( = mental

( = R e a s o n ) : see rttiocixai

Mani

V

17831.

14114

oxxmìt

«

I 4 2 i 3 t 21 .

power);

Mani

2201'

- " ' M

21243 :

rciooorLaa

« A n c o H 3 42 5 238 1 0 3 4 2 1 7 243 ; B vy^cn

3 3 f 41

; M a n i 1931&.

32

( = an

expert)

160u.

H 1 8 1 4 3 638 7 7 1 2 ; M 5 8 4 1 . D 2645.

oia.cn H ^ m

36114.

H 2 0 2 5 (sic) : — ^ » c u ,

m H

1939.

H 1 5 4 3 2 8 6 ( = L|7roòeKrm, r e c e i v e r s of t a x e s ) . KÀvjiAcn H 4 4 2 1 7 8 1 2 ; D 2 7 2 3 . H

7844.

•icn : — icDrc* M 9 0 1 6 . 0.10ÌCD M 6 4 2 8 3 4 t 6 5 1 1 0 8 4 ° . rsL-Toicn H

M 1 0 8 4 3 , see wA.. \ \ .

14319.

a m i e » Mani 20 83334 20 93' 2IO819 K\o->a9Tcn H

211512.

16625.

a in apodosi :—• after ^ r r - o 1003. a f t e r .1 A \ -

H 1 6 9 4 (sic);

M 72«

8735

92'

M 806 8316.

see also . . . ci . . . . B 11616"30.

.«ìisorfl

clxvi

INDEX I I I25 3 .

m 11\ N^O

:— I D U A !

Mani 210 13 .

,

see also i ^ s i n . *-=»-=> ( = ' once upon a time ') PI 64 25 69 5 71 l s . (sale) M 132-136 138H rcja_»it ( = a Manichee, (jjJjj) H 30 18 . K - i ^ . 1 1 H 128 2 . «5^.00, M 7 0 « 77 11 &c. K-jo, H 48 28 . 39 K - O J I Mani 20 8 . «iicui, H 80 30 1 0 P «33 1 22 12 1 28« ; Mani 204 1 7 20836 : Five in number, II13G 21 . rcu-M :—rcì»o i n i ) » re-i_.i M 120 20 . M 103 5 . - a A . :— D 42 2 6 . to«, I I 15831. D 26 2 '. i » , :— ^ i a i ^ M 118 18 . K-iss, H 64 3 . 4 A . D 16«. (exalted) H 4 0 u . K-yasit Mani 218 1? . ^sì» :— rcaiVhsa D 36 5 . -i-.-i, :— -¿..i*.** M 82 22 33f. H 69 13 109'22 26 ; D 3 5 " ; Mani 218 3f . K-iuaj. Mani 217 2 . niLsftj. (usury, pledge) M l l o 2 3 f ; B 14 3 33 168 1 3 ; Y170 8 . „ (corruption) M 141 3 8 ; Y 17 1 42 1 7 3 36 179 1 0 1 4 . M 116 39 . t-*j> Mani 2 2 2 36 . K-eu» M 100 1 0 ; V ISO 1321 . « Ì U . H 119 18 &c. ; B 166 9 1G723. jdi_u B 158*. i t f l u i Mani 218 40tf . r t x B U , M 129 19 . A - ^ j i u j . H 125 27 37 1 2 9 « ; M 67 d4 . H 127«. M 9 4 32 1 3 2 39 ike.

TNDTCX ir-iV"

Mani 19 7

34

ri \ vii

.

nij_u : — 'LljI'm 8125. rii.ojj.

(beast, n o t 'reptile')

D

3 8 ™ ; (wild

beasts, n o t 'cattle') M a n i 2 1 2 s .

iAJ. H 88 31 H « s A *

4020 4 1 1 8 3 ' 7 2 - 7 5 (11 i nall).

H 15 53443.

.

(vb.with a ) M 1 2 7

» (conj.) M 126

I ^o-iiaj. rii^jaj. vyu-»

V 176

v y u i

1 3

177

30

178

. 14118.

38

4 17

.

B 1 4 8 1 51 4 9 3 15822 1 6 7 " 16S15 H 142

ji i . . B J 0 0 U l

u

:

3

; M 1012112S10;

2023

.

B 1 6 2 22.

1505.

— kjojoji Mani

2007.

: — vyn-ui>rc H 9 2 1 .

A qui :—Aco-uW M 5 7 3 1 . rf^Ji

H

12S22'.

t A ^ u i

B

14414.

M

1 2 73 9

&c.

t^Jxc^ia. M 126» 127:n. ^Jtrj,

H 42S.

* > r ii : —

n n n , see

re.ac\.x-u passim,

see i c - v n u . . . . .

itiftia,

a n aid to sight,

contrary to Light, D 32

1 8 f

though

; like apipe, D 3331;

not i n the sky, f o ri t is incorporeal, D 4 0 9; t h e D a r k diffuses s m o k e , M a n i 2 1 6 ' 2 2 5 4 0 . At.,

(t o polish, t o o r n a m e n t ) D 4 7 M 5 3 5 9 9 5 3 5 -.») M 10837 109'57 &c. M 13 223. 4 t-ri^sa M 52 7539 12848 ; V 1822 ; Mani 20823 20944 : see pciao :— Ajx-t JtL,isa Mani 22022. ^ j a » M 6048 &c. (33 times); B (29 times); Y 170 16 ; Mani 2 IO4. R - U a (Martha) B 165«. K-.1ÌSB (castle) H 3 820. ^ o M i a . Mani 22247 22311. H 15219 ; B 14315 ; V 18731. . ^ o ^ j i i s a H 4424 &c. (11 times); M (16 times); Mani 20934. ^o^ia. M SS23 3 *« 56« 67« 69 n 7134 13231 14219.

clxxii

"TSTDEX - t u e ^ i s , (sic) 11 129' 1857 ; M Gl^8 682f 12541 12634 137-tT . spelling uncertain in M 5332 548 10 11 14 020 1 4 136 (never clearly r^jJ-). u L a (measure) : —rfit-uaxsa D 1724 3 826 &c . H 12 448 ; M passim;

B 16 338 .

22f

. .. .r-n ^ i , M 105 10 920 34. fJlXAl M 7814. n u » ^ (of Light) Mani 2 1 536. H 10025 ; D 535 820 ; M 13431 33. t

• y a i :— l y 18 632. 28 i^jxAcuaj M 51 . i a j :— ijajèi,«' B 14910 (l-ead »,«•). r c i ^ j D 3G3' (the Carpenter's half-shut eye). K-ii^oj M 12118 ; B 147« &c. « Y 18720. rftmevj and riijcru passim. wicDoj -• H 7 539 Ac. ; Mani 20427. pt-Tjcnj means 1 Sun and Moon ' Mani 2098, but re-ijcnj often means the same as pe"ienoj . The two of rc"i->m-i and n- \ . •> give birth to re.,to. in the Eye D 4 232f. «oa B 16224 ; V 1843 l l . — ->• Mani 914.23 PCTOJ (pc-m • n -> R Ì L U I ) V 17412,f. ( = rc®oj) H 7235 731. > » i, ^B-ii-i^w, B (14 times), not jua : also V 17426 iÄ

16015 1G21

:— D

27

-^.ìa

M

131

M

&c. (IO

129

; Y

2

M

5 6 9 ; M a n i 2 1 029.

639.

2 6 1 B , s e e n£sac\_i_o.

( =

_I.ìa

1708.

1893.

:— - ^ a ì a W

D

« V l o i A

times),

14324 ; y

H tóa^ia

Mani) Mani

B

151

20911.

.

18

H

178

rr* % T.TO.a, M

; M

u

—

M

10944.

M

10426 12531 ; Y

•Ua.

H

292

n-i-aè^

M

1731.

e 45.

9611318.

M a n i 20044

&c.

D

473G;

M

5610.

H

18431f ; M

B

16631 1674 ; M a n i H

pc^eüi^

8545.

1 2 4 32.

nxa.

è ^

16815.

6533.

47.

r f i sicua, B

-^AiA

16741

aii&ìtrc H

loggia

clxxvii

M

6

M

13746.

673843

73-75. 22219.

6946 1 2 3 3 &c. (9 t i m e s ) ;

7 45

6

86

H passim

75

; M

Mani

20719".

24.

11944 12113 ; B 1569 16023;

passim. l o k ^ r a L » *

rcsA^

V

•ua^

Mani

188 .

Mani

2236.

B

16132

41.

B

16339

41.

s

H

6421.

r f a i ^ a

H

4222 6 918

rfi

17518.

: — cnìve-a^ L

u

20G».

1

U

^

M

671

vc\ -in.T» I I 19

8313, B

1120.

15312

&e. N

Mani

clxxviii

INDEX « a u M 12710 ; B 153*\ i u ^ i o II 4 424. ^ » u «UK' H I P 101' 12 1 37 122a I23'23 ; Mani 20834. t ^ u n - i a u H 11215 ; Mani 22023. 'sx k w ^ m Mani 22031. \o «-.in-r. Mani 221«. ^-.cnixnèi-iri' Mani 21613. i^iioxju ( = virginity) M 754' ifcc. r'Oo.o Mani 22329. itiio (' sound,' ' voice,' as distinct from the «Lao») D 27'2'"f. rersuicvj AJJ B 16145. l o Mani 206". « I n 4vv= M ] 353'. > n :— « M i o (' is established ') Mani 21638 ; ' i ^ n M 1042:> 12531. • " (philosophical standpoint) D 720. ^— rckAìx (the Three Dimensions) D 142031 154 1718 18« 2215. rckan • n Mani 21114 : see on « s u u . B 15 437 1 5 745 1 5 94 11 38 ; V 17313; v-\", Mani 20346 2049 2 2014. .V» M 122-. culo H 8 1 28 17428 ; M 8426M iga 33 3 ^ . i v ì a o :— the heavens are a r e • r c i s u D 4 525. A - remi B 15 9 26, see i^-ure*. \ - - Mani 2 2 7 24. nc\_»_o M 9 829 11027 ; Y 1819 21. (of the Baptist) M 82-84 8612 1071. « » ^ j j s ( = self) H (20 times), M 6 330 : ( = 5X0)0-) H 23'. ,, ( = substance) H (20 times), D passim, B 159", V 1742u (of wood), Mani (6 times). rdn^ai^ tbiiLu, black substances, D 4136. re-ijOBr*- «¿a&Jjo H 514'. Verbal nouns like 'buying' and 'selling' are only rcJ_aoa> and have no D 183^f. Compare nd&o^ia, 'species,' sort,' D 2616. « » o i \ c a i i H 12816f. >u> :—

INDEX « ^ a

H

ea.a.o

V

nil^A-SLa

1 6

.

n

174"' ;

M a n i

(Manichee M a n i

218

902
M). p. xxxiv, 1. 2. For ' some o f ' read ' o u t of.' ,, 1.3. ,, ' r e v e a l e d ' „ 'evident.' p. xxxv, 1. 10. Delete 'as.' ,, 1. 25. Begin a new paragraph with ' A n d after.' ,, 1. 26. For ' f o r n i c a t o r s ' read ' h a r l o t s ' : all the words are fem.

CORRIGENDA p. 1 - 9 , 1. 2, r e a d m i i o j o i ^ . ¡i. 1 :>3, 1. 38, r e a d - L j ^ i a u r c * (as e l s e w h e r e ) . p. 138, 1. 1 5 : .see p. Ixiii. p. 139, 1. 12, read rc^ î n ^ . m rn p. 140, 1. 19,

i

«

i

the -l appears t o be p r e f i x e d by a corrector,

p. 112, 11. 10, I S : see p. I x v . Against

Bardaisan.

p. M 3 , 11. 20, 22 : see p. l x v i . p. 115, 1. 3 : see p. l x v i i . p. 1-15, 1. 20,

read

p. 115, 1. 45

m^iVxsi.

r e a d .-»cnaii-r..

p. 1 4 6 , 1 . 2 7 ; p. 147, 11. 1 0 - 1 1 , 17 ; p. 148,11. 3 1 , 3 9 , 1 0 : see p. l x v i i i . p. 148, 1. 18, _

CICTI-IAIc\.Äi] r e a d «^^ncoS^tcvsa.

p. 149, 1. 10 : see p. l x i x . p. 155, 1. 35, read

ij.n-ii

ra

(sic).

p. 156, 1. 29, r e a d - - » à u i à A r : ' (»-Aai] read ^Aca. p. 41, 1. 11. A^i-»!»-] sic. p. 60, 1. 35. read i - X . .

p. 87, 1. 46. cna^A AJA] sic.

p. 117, 1. 45. read mi>o\ i r n . p. 118, 1. 29. n-T.mi\] read rei^m-iA. p. 118, 1. 31—p. 119, 1. 31 ( a x s ^ ) ] quoted in B.M. Add. 14612, fol. 84a (Wright, CBM 697a). p. 118, 1. 44. ^__ocd4> ] 14623, ^ c ^ - n ' i , , 14612. p. 119,1. 2. —»iivR-«.] 14623, 14612. p. 119, 1. 6. rtMlkin (misprint)] rtfssiiiaa 14612. p. 119, 1. 17. e i a a * ] sic, oiaosre'i 14612. p. 119, 1. 19. A l i a » ] A l a s 14612. p. 119, 1. 21. « ^ o i ^ J i . e l l ] 14623, — x ^ * 14612. p. 119,1. 26. om. 14612.

229

.o-

tocuusia.i

,\ ^ *

l—s *

*

[FOL. 1«

. nf v i n ^ g

rd_j

K'Aum \ T.

^

rc'imcx—J

\

rtLa.a r u A o

Ai

iri 1

rd_i_=iAc\

NOTE.—The rest of this discourse is lost, but what is missing is probably not more than one leaf of Add. 14623 : see p. cxi.

FOL.

•o-

la]

Q0O_J_2n.il

228

•«»•

CL-1CT3 ^ -n

i -» ^ .>K T'

a

n

nd—

cvcyi . a.tVrv

oocn

o . o

5

\ t M

^»Wi \ -w

i

Arf

Vi-iUs. r ^ l %

-« v V

i

re'oocLsa

i—^cn

K'ooo—sa—i «vi

ri'ajcvsaJ *

*

w^A» ^ rci

. . ocn » *TI T . C I ^ I

*

*

t -ai

r ^ i x a * col. 3

. o . o . o .

^^ocnJV'd

Q *an«nl

on rC* * *

^

»

»

* 1 COL. 2

r ^ o CD iv .1

rC*^ M \ T. c\ocn

*

ptfal^Q

^.iri'

^

«

rid.i

10

^^O—icn

» Tha whole of COL. 2 is illegible, except a few letters.

circ* 20 ^rC'l *

*

227

•O. 0ûC*_S_50."M

ss r c ' i a . - m K '

o co

n í o en

: vsarí'.t

^-sn

[Foll. 16, la

-o-

•1C\__JJL A .

r^Tcno

A-i_&JS3Cl

31

n \

ri* cicn Fol. la COL. 1 *

? ? .

* en

i -n.l

«li

v ^ K *

^ o m

.

e » 35 T -

7

3

«193

.

-K'oeo

ocn

ctacn.i *

•TxÌVS. 1—I üéxrc'a

os QQ

*

*

r¿_»ai «

V u l

oc

=3.1

OD 03

• *

*

*

*

i

\ \

i

ss

re* -i \

r^ocn

*

a_.ocn

n f -i ts ^

u

>ètii\

rC'.V-ul ^

*

*

% • en

Açlo.1

CLJDQO

A^saa

en T

^ r^i

i

a

, \

»a

40 l ^ - ^ Q . T I I A\cv_l

\

D

r y "t - I

rf'\ -n i

.»oaalaSüLa

n.l

.Vi jsQa-i.i

^cnoäa^.

rdxA-^.

v y ^ actixii.^ r^ï

* "

I

t ^

- Ci i u i Av-x-» i

D

ÇXÂVso.T —i. \

n c a

cn_ r f i "71.1

ri'QO-ÄCU^Oor^

: rí'icaX

èvia

iuiiiA.1 iirc'o

cn_\ G G

j - ä o

,T_u . en

.

1

*n

oa_i_=a il.

20

•©• qoft \ -a.T.i

F O L . 2a]

224

o».i

i

sarf

^kCDoèure'.n

> \

àv.r«'

COJL&J.1

ocn.i

pfl i H

cfULSui.i

col ? 5

pa . u s a .1 i^Q

po-A

n 1

. cn_l

rc'.V-.K'

,\

i \CB

. iViiOlJI

coii

-»cn

cnAiäri s \

^.en

rf.tx^e»

G

1

^lèi.l

»rCo

.

. rc'icUl rr* •view

_

a-ipc"

A

"WO

«*cn 4S

ç a ; •sa .

Ai^ m-^cn

Ȁrc'.l

rc* \

pe^-XrC

pdiLsa .Är^l

ri'ia—i.i « \

rV V -so

A_^A

A

mo

n

_»cp . .*CD

Av_»r«'.t

r^u

.i

^ÄK'.l

10

223

•o- ooajjsa.t.i

[FOL. 2A

p¿

lo

A \ -73 ocra li

•

'

•

M.l 3—1J

^

35 . cnA 3—u

^—^en S sa

la

^

40 en T °> 13

r¿ó\ r

rV

a

13

n .. i «

nrr

w* r

^mr*?

^ .

>
3 S — o

^

40

«

. o

\

1

n

K l i o a i a

A i i ^ .

à v J u n

r í ' i a n c v

ri'

lc\

»

* ä i o

r e í — i — >

5 — >

. K ' A n . i s s a

A u l

i

.

*1H

As

r ^ o e o

i—i

r ¿

T

o c r a _ i _ n a i i

o en A

o Fol. 4 b L. 1 C ¿ L 1 45

.1

\ c p

.

-1

r C í e v - l

r e í — — s o

rç'ài

.

ài o en

^ a . i f t a ' t .

35

n ~ i

1

b \ a CD

i

í s A

^ V - S a i t r í '

_ » C n

Q o c v j j s a . i . i

s a

A u x !

r í ' a c

[ F O L L . 5a, 4b

- o

k ' . i — u

.1

K ' i u i ^ . i i u a

x - i a

. e n

s

1

*73

FOL.

5a]

cniitQa^a

•o- oocv \ •aa.i.i ^sa

rC'QOÄCV^ODrC'A .rc'

/

en

i IK'

214

K,cn_»_al_a

^GOLU.IO

orí*

relAo

. ^ • l ir.

.

moÍ.1

A s.. r d A - ^ l A

*73Q

. p^ n « °iOp

. . » ì ->3o

i \

'

• V

. o . o . o . o . o . o i-sari'.T

•ja .1—50

i

j

cnl _

rC'o

•o.

213 25 ^ o c n \

[ F O L L . 5b,

5a

rc'èv^.ïf^ia

. i^àxs^ilo l°>\»A\.3Lao

rc , à\T_.T-I-

30 . o . r ^ X O T ä .1

n^.i ol. 5a 31. 1 K ' Í A

o on

^_>.1CT3Q0O

^

Qn

i

r